Allowed

Idrees and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023A482/4224/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash a criminal charge sheet. The court found that the parties had entered into a compromise regarding the private dispute underlying the case involving offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.11.2011 of Case No.5281 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is hereby quashed.

Idrees and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4224 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Idrees And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gajendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.11.2011 of Case No.5281 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 963 of 2011) (State Versus Idrees and another), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, pending before the court of learned C.J.M Kushinagar.

¶7

On 09.02.2017, the Court has passed following order:

¶8

"Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama, which is being taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.11.2011 of Case No.5281 of 2012 (Case Crime No.963 of 2011) (State Versus Idrees and another), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushingar, pending before the Court of Learned C.J.M Kushingar.

¶11

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the private dispute between the parties has been compromised, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is thus, argued that the since the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, continuance of the present proceedings against the applicant is bad in law.

¶12

Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the private dispute between the parties has been compromised and the opposite party no.2 also does not want to proceed any further with the matter.

¶13

Let the said compromise be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushingar for verification, within a period of 15 days from today, which may be done within a period of two months, thereafter, under intimation to this Court.

¶14

Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel counsel for the opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period.

¶15

List after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶16

For a period of three months or till verification of aforesaid compromise no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶17

However in case the applicant does not file aforesaid compromise before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushingar within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated."

¶18

Pursuant to the above order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar vide order dated 01.05.2017 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar vide order dated 01.05.2017 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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 and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the proceeding for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.11.2011 of Case No.5281 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 963 of 2011) (State Versus Idrees and another), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, pending before the court of learned C.J.M Kushinagar are hereby quashed.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 Anurag

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Idrees and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idrees and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Alias Mahmood and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Gaba and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Dwivedi @ Saurabh Kumar Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others