Allowed

Shital Kumari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2023A482/37939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal intimidation. Relying on a verified compromise between the parties and precedents allowing settlement in cognizable offences, the Court held that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of the summoning order dated 08.05.2017 in Criminal Case no. 184 of 2017 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, were quashed.

Shital Kumari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102478

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37939 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Shital Kumari And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shweta Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

On 26.02.2020, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"A joint affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶10

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 08.05.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Criminal Case no. 184 of 2017, under Sections 406, 504 & 506 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in terms of the compromise.

¶11

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. It is further 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 : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶12

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

¶13

List this case on 31.03.2020 before the appropriate Bench.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 18.03.2020 and the court concerned, thereafter, 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.

¶15

Office is directed to send a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of

¶16

the compromise to the court concerned through FAX within three days.

¶17

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

¶18

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

¶19

In compliance of the aforesaid order, report from C.J.M., Ballia is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 13.02.2023. A letter of C.J.M., Ballia dated 25.03.2021 has been placed on record along with order dated 24.03.2021 vide which compromise has been verified in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties have decided to stay together, therefore, no grudge remains.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 have no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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. &

¶31

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 summoning order dated 08.05.2017, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Criminal Case no. 184 of 2017, (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Shital Kumari and others), under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶34

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Rahul.

¶36

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

Shital Kumari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shital Kumari and 6 Others 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

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

Satvir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gautam Khera and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobhit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaluwa Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another