Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2023A482/4940/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 506 IPC. The court quashed the cases after the complainant's counsel confirmed no objection to quashing, based on a verified compromise entered between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4019 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2019 under Sections 406, 506 IPC were quashed.

Brijesh Alias Mahmood and Another Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4940 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh Alias Mahmood And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14.05.2019 as well as the summoning order dated 20.03.2020 issued by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4019 of 2020 (State Vs. Brijesh @ Mahmood and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2019, under Sections 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rasulpur, District Firozabad.

¶8

On 09.02.2023, the Court has passed following order:

¶9

"Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.03.2020 issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad being Criminal Case No. 4019 of 2020 as well as charge sheet dated 14.05.2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2019, under Sections 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rasulpur, District Firozabad on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

¶12

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 due to money. 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

¶13

been filed by opposite party no.2 before the court below that he does not want 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Put up this case on 17.03.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶17

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 16.02.2023 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

When the matter is listed next, name of Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate shall be shown as learned counsel for opposite party no.2."

¶22

Pursuant to the above order, the learned learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad vide order dated 17.02.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad vide order dated 17.02.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure nos. 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶23

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 criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶24

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also not denied the

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶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 case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶34

Accordingly, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4019 of 2020 (State Vs. Brijesh @ Mahmood and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2019, under Sections 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rasulpur, District Firozabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad are hereby quashed.

¶35

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

¶36

Order Date :- 17.3.2023 SK Srivastava

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Alias Mahmood 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mannu Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahboob Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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