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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Setting aside of the order dated 01.09.2022 rejecting the compromise application; directions to both parties to appear before the court below within two weeks with a certified copy of the order and file a proper compromise deed; expectation that the trial court verifies the compromise (recording parties' statements on fulfilment of its terms) and passes an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within two months; interim protection that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till verification of the compromise; liberty reserved to the applicants to approach the High Court again for quashing of the proceedings after verification.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.09.2022 rejecting the compromise application, along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.549 of 2014, should be quashed in light of the compromise dated 12.07.2022 arrived at between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a compromise, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending; accordingly, the order dated 01.09.2022 vide which the compromise application was rejected is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Both parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks and are permitted to file a proper compromise deed.

Key takeaways

The trial court is expected to fix a date for verification of the compromise, ensure the presence of the parties, record their statements as to whether all terms and conditions of the original compromise deed have been fulfilled, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months.ratio¶12
After verification, the court will allow the parties to obtain certified copies of the report and the compromise, and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings; the criminal proceedings themselves were not quashed at this stage.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), order dated 10.4.2023 in Application U/S 482 No. 5220 of 2023 (Arshad Khan and another v. State of U.P. and another): The Court set aside the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the court concerned rejecting the parties' compromise application (compromise dated 12.07.2022) in Criminal Case No. 549 of 2014 (State vs. Arshad Khan & another), arising out of Case Crime No. 713 of 2019 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bahedi, District Bareilly, holding that once the parties have amicably settled, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending. The Court directed both parties to appear before the court below within two weeks with a certified copy of the order and file a proper compromise deed; the trial court is expected to fix a date for verification of the compromise, ensure the parties' presence, record their statements as to whether the terms of the original compromise deed stand fulfilled, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within two months. On verification, the applicants may obtain certified copies of the report and compromise and approach the High Court again for quashing of the proceedings. Till such verification, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. The application was partly allowed, without expressing any opinion on the merits. The rejection below had rested on non-specification of whether section 506 IPC falls within the category in Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.; the learned A.G.A. submitted that the application was wrongly rejected and that section 506 IPC is mentioned in the second column of schedule one of Section 320(1) Cr.P.C.

Court No. - 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5220 of 2023

Applicant :- Arshad Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the application during the course of the day.

Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.P. Pathak learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the order dated 01.09.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.549 of 2014 (State vs. Arshad Khan & another), arising out of Case Crime No.713 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bahedi, DistrictBareilly in the light of compromise dated 12.07.2022 arrived between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this application has been filed under the changed circumstances as the parties have entered into compromise. In this regard, the informant moved an application on 12.07.2022 before the court concerned stating therein that he does not want to proceed with the case. However, instead of calling the parties for verifying the aforesaid compromise, the court concerned on the said application has passed the order dated 01.09.2022 rejecting the same on the ground that the same is not maintainable as in the application moved by the parties, it was not specified as to whether section 506 IPC comes under the category as mentioned in Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. or not. He further submits that once the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. Therefore, the aforesaid order may be set aside.

On the other hand, learned AGA also submits that the aforesaid application has wrongly been rejected. Even otherwise, section

506 IPC is mentioned in second column of schedule one of Section 320(1) Cr.P.C.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before this Court. The order dated 01.09.2022 vide which the compromise application has been rejected, is hereby set aside .

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is partly allowed .

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 Jitendra/-

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