Allowed

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

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023A482/4248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the Allahabad High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5092 of 2017 instituted against the applicants. The court accepted the verified compromise deed filed by the parties, noting that the dispute was civil in nature and had been settled, thereby holding that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedin

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.5092 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC is hereby quashed.

Pradeep and 4 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. - 4248 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Akash Tyagi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 25.01.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.5092 of 2017 (Manish Sehgal vs. Pradeep and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station-T.P. Nagar, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Meerut on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶8

Earlier, on 10.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Sujata Choudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 25.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Meerut as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 5092 of 2017 (Manish Sehgal Vs. Pradeep and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C., Police Station T.P. Naar, District Meerut on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that both the parties are known to each other very well and the dispute between them is civil in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that he does not want

¶12

to press the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the applicants. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶14

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶15

Connect this case along with records of Application U/S 482 No. 4226 of 2023 and list on 20.03.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 24.02.2023 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 the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶17

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.

¶18

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within two week from today.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case."

¶20

Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants, wherein certified copy of verification order dated 14.03.2023 as well as compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure no.S.A.-1 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the

¶23

impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶24

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.5092 of 2017 (Manish Sehgal vs. Pradeep and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station-T.P. Nagar, District-Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Meerut is hereby quashed.

¶32

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

¶33

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶34

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Jitendra/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep and 4 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

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