Allowed

Om Prakhash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023A482/41232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. After a compromise deed was filed and verified by the lower court, the High Court held no useful purpose in prolonging the trial and quashed the summons/cognizance order on the basis of the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 13.10.2021 allowed the application.

Om Prakhash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41232 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakhash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Gangwar,Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, holding brief of Mr. Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

On 04.01.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶8

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baheri Bareilly on charge sheet dated 17.3.2020 bearing charge sheet no.44 of 2020 registered as case no.1423 of 2021 arising out of case crime no.39 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that both the parties filed compromise deed (annexure no.5) to the affidavit filed in support of this application as understanding has reached between the parties to settle their dispute amicably. The claim so raised is sustained. The present compromise deed is required to be verified physically by the trial court.

¶10

In view of above, it is directed that both the parties shall appear on 3.2.2023 before the court concerned and shall present the compromise deed before it. In the event on 3.2.2023, verification process cannot be drawn and is incomplete because of unforeseen circumstances / paucity of time of the court, then the date of next working will be fixed for its verification. In case, any compromise deed is so presented then physical verification of the parties shall be done and the order shall be passed by the court concerned thereon. In case any order is passed by the court concerned, the certified copy of the same shall be placed on record by way of filing affidavit by the present applicants.

¶11

List this case on 15.02.2023 in the additional cause list.

¶12

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

¶13

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise verification report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is kept on record as

¶14

is evident from office report dated 06.04.2023. The letter dated 03.02.2023 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, has been placed on record along with affidavits as well as order dated 03.02.2023 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties by the Court below, in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State also affirms that the parties have entered into compromise, he has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶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

¶26

above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶27

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 13.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, Bareilly on charge sheet dated 17.3.2020 bearing charge sheet no.44 of 2020 registered as Case No.1423 of 2021 (State Vs. Santosh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sheeshgarh, District Bareilly, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

¶28

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶29

Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Rahul.

¶30

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

Om Prakhash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakhash 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

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

Deepam Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Qamar Ahmad @ Guddan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Himmu Patel @ Har Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another