Allowed

Niranjan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023A482/13577/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed to quash criminal proceedings based on Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. Court allowed quashing upon settlement between parties and declaration of void sale deed by civil court.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet, summoning order, and all proceedings in Case No. 3130 of 2018 underlying Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.

Niranjan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13577 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Niranjan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Rishi Bhushan Jauhari

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Shri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, Advocate has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.02.2018 and summoning order dated 05.05.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3130 of 2018 (State Vs. Niranjan Singh and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 2163 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of dispute regarding illegal sale of agricultural land, the present criminal case was instituted against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of the family and the society, the parties have amicably and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated 02.04.2023 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to this application.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the sale deed, which was the bone of contention between the parties, has already been declared void by the competent civil court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants be quashed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 and in para 4 of the said affidavit, settlement agreement has been acknowledged and it has been averred that the the sale deed, which was the bone of contention between the parties, has already been cancelled by the competent civil court. It is further submitted that the settlement agreement drawn between the parties was drawn without any fear, coercion and undue influence.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on instruction, has stated that in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, he has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

¶14

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278] , in which, law expounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶16

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 3130 of 2018 (State Vs. Niranjan Singh and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 2163 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Chief

¶17

Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed.

¶18

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Nadim

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Niranjan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sifa Bano Vs State of U.P.and 6 Others

Manindra Dhama Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another