Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023A482/39297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court upheld the quashing of proceedings for cheating (Sections 419, 420 IPC) after the applicant settled the dispute, discharged liability via bank drafts, and obtained the opposite party's consent, finding no useful purpose in continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 221/2020 under Sections 419, 420 IPC were quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39297 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamla Shanker Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gopal Krishna

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by Mr. Gopal Krishna, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. B.K. Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Kamla Shanker Pathak, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for the State and Mr. Gopal Krishna, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party 2.

¶7

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the chargesheet dated 06.09.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.221/2020 (State Vs. Mukesh Singh), under Sections-419, 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District-Mahoba, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.

¶8

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During the pendency of present application, parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a supplementary affidavit dated 19.11.2022, was filed by the applicant before this Court annexing along with the same, the compromise entered into by the parties.

¶9

The supplementary affidavit dated 19.11.2022 is not on

¶10

the record. However, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before the Court, a photocopy of the same, which is taken on record.

¶11

Pursuant to the aforementioned compromise, learned counsel for the applicant has handed over three demand drafts bearing nos.014384, 014385 and 014386 drawn in favour of Devendra Pratap Singh, Mohd. Hasan and Mohd. Hasan, respectively.

¶12

On the above premise, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant has already discharged the liability standing against him, no further cause of action survives with the first informant opposite party no.2 to pursue the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. It is then contended that since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society and the parties having amicably settled the dispute interest of justice shall be served in case the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself instead of relegating the parties to court below.

¶13

Per contra, the learned AGA and Mr. Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, do not oppose the submissions urged by learned counsel for the applicant. They submit that once the applicant has discharged the liability standing against him, they do not have any objection in case the entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State, the learned counsel representing

¶15

opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record coupled with the bona fide of the applicant in placing before the Court, the aforementioned three bank demand drafts whereby the liability standing against him stands discharged, this Court finds that, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case.

¶16

Accordingly, the present application succeeds and is allowed . The entire proceedings arising out of case crime no.221/2020 (State Vs. Mukesh Singh), under Sections419, 420 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District-Mahoba, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba, are hereby quashed.

¶17

The Bench Secretary shall incorporate the details of the bank drafts on the order sheet of this application. Thereafter, the same shall be handed over to Mr. Gopal Krishna, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2, who shall also endorse the receipt of the same on the order sheet.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.1.2023 S.Chaurasia

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antim @ Anant Chahal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar @ Nirvesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jan Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aneesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others