Allowed

Brahmpal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023A482/41996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings including a summoning order and an interim order. The quashing was based on a verified compromise between the parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents that permit settlement even in non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of order dated 11.10.2022 as well as summoning order dated 24.01.2007 in Old Complaint Case No.3130 of 2006 and New Complaint Case No.2181 of 2022 were quashed.

Brahmpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41996 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Brahmpal Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Amendment application filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶6

In Ref:Criminal Misc. Amendment Application

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants filed amendment application seeking amendment in the prayer clause challenging the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by A.C.J.M., Amroha.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties had entered into compromise and the aforesaid compromise was rejected by order dated 11.10.2022 on the ground that offences are non compoundable. By mistake, the aforesaid order could not be challenged in the application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

No objection has been raised by learned A.G.A.

¶10

Prayer so made is bona fide.

¶11

Accordingly, this amendment application is allowed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to carryout necessary amendment in the prayer clause during the course of the day.

¶13

The amendment application shall be treated as part of the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Order on Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶16

On 13.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶17

"1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶18

2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicants submits that he be permitted to amend the prayer clause of this application by seeking a challenge to the entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 3130 of 2006 (Gopichand vs. Brahmpal Singh).

¶19

3. Prayer made by learned counsel for applicants is bonafide. Same is not opposed by learned AGA. It is accordingly allowed.

¶20

4. Let necessary amendment in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by learned counsel for applicants during course of day.

¶21

5. Perused the record.

¶22

6. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 24.01.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Complaint Case No. 2181 of 2022 (Gopichand Vs. Brahmpal Singh) under Sections 406, 420, 311, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Amroha Nagar, District- Amroha as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case now pending in the court of Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in view of the compromise dated 10.07.2022 entered into by the parties.

¶23

7. 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 may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶24

8. 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.

¶25

9. Put up this case on 13.3.2023 as fresh.

¶26

10. Learned counsel for appellants undertake to ensure the presence of the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 21.2.2022 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 sent to this Court by the next date.

¶27

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

¶28

12. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in aforementioned case cirme number. "

¶29

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report from Civil Judge (J.D.), Amroha is placed on record as is evident from office report

¶30

dated 05.03.2023. The report of Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 13.03.2023 has been placed along with compromise affidavit as well as order dated 24.02.2023 vide which compromise has been verified by the Court below, in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

their dispute.

¶43

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of order dated 11.10.2022 as well as summoning order dated 24.01.2007 in Old Complaint Case No.3130 of 2006 and New Complaint Case No.2181 of 2022 (Gopichand Vs. Brahmpal Singh), under Sections 406, 420, 311, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, pending in the Court of Second A.C.J.M, Amroha, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶44

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

¶45

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Rahul.

¶46

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

Brahmpal Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmpal Singh and 2 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

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mayank Katheriya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another