Allowed

Swayam Prakash Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023A482/16261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after lower court verified a compromise deed between parties despite offences being non-compoundable, ruling no useful purpose served by continuing trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Criminal Case No. 35842 of 2016 arising from FIR dated 31/03/2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 504, 506 IPC.

Swayam Prakash Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16261 of 2023 Applicant :- Swayam Prakash Agnihotri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶4

Heard Mr. Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vipin Kumar, holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

Earlier, the applicant has approached this Court by filing application u/s 482 No.10751 of 2022, in which, on 21.07.2022, the following order was passed:

¶6

"Heard Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. A.K. Mahrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.24 of 2013 (State vs. Swayam Prakash Agnihotri and Others), arising out of FIR dated 31.03.2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to some dispute between the parties, FIR was lodged by both the parties against each other. He further submits that now the parties have amicably settled their disputes and a compromise has been entered between them out of court. In this regard, an application has been moved before the court concerned stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said application has been annexed as Annexure no.9 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.

¶9

Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶10

In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶11

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶12

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. "

¶14

Inspite of direction of this Court to verify the compromise, though the Court concerned by order dated 02.09.2023 has verified the compromise but it has also been stated that as the offences are non compoundable, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 stated in the counter affidavit that the compromise has already been verified, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicant would be a futile exercise, wastage of time of the Court and an abuse of process of law, hence, the same may be quashed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.

¶17

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶18

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675;

¶19

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;

¶20

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;

¶21

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and

¶22

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶23

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

¶24

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the compromise have been verified.

¶26

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.35842 of 2016 (State Vs. Swayam Prakash Agnihotri and others), Case Crime No.24/2013 dated 3103.2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending before C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar, in terms of compromise dated 04.08.2022 and verification order dated 02.09.2023, are hereby quashed .

¶27

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶28

Order Date :- 3.5.2023/Rahul.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Swayam Prakash Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swayam Prakash Agnihotri 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

Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Prakash Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Kumar Rajput and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabali Saroj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Teenu @ Mahendra Pratap Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another