Allowed

Sunita Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023A482/5872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 0486 of 2018 based on a compromise between the parties. The court, satisfied with the verified settlement, held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3574 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0486 of 2018 under sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC are quashed.

Sunita Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5872 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Agarwal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nilesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Nilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as also perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3574 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0486 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties, who are known to each other very well, is purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶9

In the above regard, a compromise has been entered into between the parties. Thereafter the applicants have approached this Court by means of the present application for quashing the aforesaid case in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed following order on 23rd February, 2023:

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the charge-sheet along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3574 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0486 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. submits that the compromise effected between the parties may be verified before the court concerned.

¶14

In the interest of justice, the applicants and the opposite party no.2 are directed to appear before the court concerned on 15.3.2023 and shall submit the compromise, which shall be verified by the court concerned and a report in this regard shall be submitted before this Court within 15 days thereafter.

¶15

List on 4.4.2023 as fresh.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed. "

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd February, 2023, the court below has verified the said compromise vide order dated 28th March, 2023, copies of the compromise deed and verification order have been brought on record.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶19

On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise and the same has also been verified by the court below, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3574 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0486 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, DistrictShahjahanpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed.

¶29

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

¶30

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶31

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Sushil/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Agarwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Agarwal 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

Ajay Yadav @ Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish @ Satish Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Rajpoot and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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