Allowed

Aditya Goel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023A482/6069/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge-sheet and proceedings. Relying on a prior order approving settlement for co-accused in identical facts, the court held no distinguishing features existed and proceedings were quashed to avoid oppression.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge-sheet dated 06.06.2019 and entire proceedings in Case No. 20089 of 2018 arising from Crime No. 1016 of 2017.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6069 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Aditya Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Mohiley Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anupam Dubey,Pramod Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pramod Kumar, the learned counsel for opposite party 2 .

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 06.06.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 1016 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 120B I.P.C., Police Station - Sector 20, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case insofar as they relate to co-accused Vikas Gupta and Awadhesh Goel, have already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 16332 of 2020 (Vikas Gupta And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to the aforesaid accused. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of the present applicant can be distinguished from the aforesaid co-accused. He, therefore, submits that identical order may be passed in the case of present applicant also. The order dated 23.11.2020 passed in respect of the aforesaid co-accused, for ready reference, is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶9

"Heard the counsel for the applicants and Sri Pramod Kumar, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no. 2.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 20089 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Gupta & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1016 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station - Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar and impugned order dated 11.9.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves and they do not wish any further litigation between themselves. The compromise application filed before the

¶11

Chief Judicial Magistrate has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. Through order dated 11.9.2020, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the compromise application.

¶12

Sri Pramod Kumar, Advocate representing opposite party no. 2 admits the fact of compromise and has no objection if the charge-sheet and entire proceedings in Case No. 20089 of 2018 are quashed and the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶13

In a number of cases, this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases which involved non-compoundable offences the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court if the nature of the offence does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and unreported judgment dated 27.11.2017 of this Court in Application under Section 482 No. 21226 of 2017, Pushpendra & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Anr.

¶14

Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbathbai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors Vs. State of Gujarat and anr reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶15

"16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;"

¶16

In this case, because the parties have settled their dispute, therefore, conviction of the applicant is least possible and the continuation of proceedings would only cause oppresion and prejudice.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶18

The charge-sheet and the entire proceedings in Case No. 20089 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Gupta & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1016 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar are, hereby, quashed."

¶19

Learned A.G.A. and Mr. Pramod Kumar, the learned counsel for opposite party 2 do not oppose the submission urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pramod Kumar, the learned counsel for opposite party 2, upon perusal of the record, the Court finds that the case of the present applicant is similar to aforementioned co-accused persons. In view of above, this application is also decided, in terms of the order dated 23.11.2020.

¶21

Consequently, the present application is allowed . The entire proceedings in Case No. 20089 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Gupta & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1016 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar are, hereby, quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Arun K. Singh

¶23

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

Aditya Goel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Goel 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

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

Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ramkishan Vs State of U.P. 5 Others

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others