Allowed

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/3215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant applied to quash proceedings for cheating and fraud under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing a verified compromise. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and pending criminal case.

What did the court decide?

Quashed charge sheet dated 13.01.2020, cognizance order dated 29.01.2020, and entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2946 of 2020.

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. Vs State of U.P. through… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3215 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neha Madaan And 3 Others. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya,Purnendu Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

On 11.02.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pankaj Srivasvata, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.01.2020 and cognizance order dated 29.01.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2946 of 2020 (State vs. Neha Madaan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0282 of 2019, under Sections 420, 120B, 406 IPC and Section 66B of I.T. Act, Police StationSector 58, NOIDA, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The compromise deed along with affidavit has been filed before the concerned court below and a copy of the same has also been annexed as Annexure no.3 to this application. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶11

Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 by RPAD returnable at an early date.

¶13

Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶14

Put up this case on 29th March, 2022 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶15

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of

¶16

the parties before it.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that the applicants shall make a fresh application alongwith compromise deed before the court below within two weeks from today for verification of the same. On such application being made, the court below after ensuring the presence of both the parties, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶18

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 48 hours.

¶19

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "

¶21

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise has been verified by the Court below vide order dated 16.03.2022 in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels. Certified copy of the order verifying the compromise has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed through e-mode on 12.05.2022.

¶22

Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the aforesaid compromise being verified by the Court concerned, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, they has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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 parties have already settled their dispute.

¶33

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 13.01.2020 and cognizance order dated 29.01.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2946 of 2020 (State vs. Neha Madaan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0282 of 2019, under Sections 420, 120B, 406 IPC and Section 66B of I.T. Act, Police Station-Sector 58, NOIDA, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶34

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Rahul.

¶36

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

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home 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

Mohd Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Malik Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nirupama Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashu Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another