Allowed

Suresh Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2023A482/4077/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted under various IPC offenses involving cheating, theft, and rioting as a dispute had been amicably settled and verified by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 2476 of 2020 arising under the specified IPC sections were quashed due to a verified compromise between the parties.

Suresh Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4077 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Bajpai And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Madhavendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Karan Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Madhavendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 2476 of 2020 (State Vs. Suresh Bajpayee and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 008 of 2020 under Sections 342, 379, 384, 448, 427, 506, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 454, 380, 411, 440, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504/35 I.P.C., police station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of CMM, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Earlier an application u/s 482 bearing no. 6969 of 2022 filed before this Court in which on 03.11.2022, the following order was passed :-

¶8

"(I.A. No. 02 of 2022 - Impleadment Application)

¶9

Heard Shri Madhavendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants of impleadment application, Shri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Shri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record, so also considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, the impleadment application is allowed permitting the learned counsel

¶11

for the applicants of impleadment application to carry out necessary amendment during course of the day.

¶12

(Order on 482 Petition)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned Counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court by way of entering into compromise which has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that since the dispute has been settled outside the Court by the parties, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed after verification of the compromise by the learned trial court.

¶15

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 concedes the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that all the accused persons have not entered into compromise, hence, the petitioners are directed to execute a fresh compromise with the informant.

¶17

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record, the petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the learned trial court on 24.11.2022 along with a fresh compromise entered between all the accused persons and the informant, who shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties.

¶18

For a period of two month, the proceedings of case No. 114618/2021 (CNR No. UPKNO4-122484-2021), "State Vs. Suresh Bajpayee and others", P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶19

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶20

Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification. "

¶21

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise was filed before the court concerned and the same has been verified on

¶22

08.12.2022 in the presence of parties and their respective counsels, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶24

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah

¶32

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) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶34

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 2476 of 2020 (State Vs. Suresh Bajpayee and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 008 of 2020 under Sections 342, 379, 384, 448, 427, 506, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 454, 380, 411, 440, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504/35 I.P.C., police station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of CMM, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise are hereby quashed.

¶35

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Arti

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

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

Ashok Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Abushad @ Nanhu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Arif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ram Chhail and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another