Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2023A482/5043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application quashing proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. A verified compromise between parties regarding a land dispute led to the quashing of the charge sheet and stay of trial, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No. 247 of 2022 under Sections 420, 406 IPC were quashed and stay proceedings.

Sushil Gaba and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5043 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sushil Gaba And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adarsh Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.01.2018 of Case No. 247 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Gagal Heri, District Saharanpur as well as to stay the proceedings of Case No. 247 of 2022 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate- III, Saharanpur on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

¶8

On 09.02.2023, the Court has passed following order:

¶9

"Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, 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. P.S.Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Adarsh Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

¶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 land. 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 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

Put up this case on 17.03.2023 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 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.

¶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 a 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

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

¶21

Pursuant to the above order, the Judicial Magistrate- III, Saharanpur order dated 21.02.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Judicial Magistrate- III, Saharanpur order dated 21.02.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as supplementary affidavit in annexure No. 2.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 247 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Gagal Heri, District Saharanpur as well as to stay the proceedings of Case No. 247 of 2022 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate- III, Saharanpur are hereby quashed.

¶33

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

¶34

Order Date :- 17.3.2023 Anurag

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Gaba 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

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

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