Allowed

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panpalia and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/6087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating (Section 420 IPC). The court noted a verified Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between parties indicating willingness to withdraw the case as grounds for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No.3663 of 2023 under Section 420 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur are quashed.

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panpalia and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46749

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6087 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sri Rajendra Kumar Panpalia And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Chaudhary,Utkarsh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶7

2. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is taken on record.

¶8

3. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.3663 of 2023 In re Wave Industries Pvt Ltd vs N.R. Infracon Pvt. Ltd under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kamlapur, District Sitapur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.

¶9

Further prayer is for quashing of the summoning order dated 05.08.2023 passed in the said case, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶10

4. Contention of the learned counsels for the contesting parties is that earlier the petitioners had filed an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4804 of 2024 In Re Rajendra Kumar Panpalia & Anr vs State of U.P. & Anr in which respondent No.2 had also been impleaded. The learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. In the said case, it has been indicated by both the parties that the parties have entered into a MoU with Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd.- private respondent No.2 which is on record. Considering the aforesaid, said MoU was sent to the learned trial court for verification.

¶11

5. Contention is that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24,05.2024, the MoU has been verified by the learned court below vide order dated 10.06.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the

¶12

petition. It is contended that said MoU has been verified and the MOU, a copy of which is Annxure-11 to the petition, also categorically indicates in para 7 that the parties are willing to withdraw the cases, which also pertain to Complaint Case No.3663 of 2023 under Section 420 IPC, as such proceedings pending with regard to the aforesaid Case No.3663 of 2023 be quashed.

¶13

6. Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts rather has supported the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

7. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the MoU has been verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.06.2024, impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. Accordingly proceedings of Case No.3663 of 2023 In re Wave Industries Pvt Ltd vs N.R. Infracon Pvt. Ltd under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kamlapur, District Sitapur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur are hereby quashed.

¶15

8. The petition is allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panpalia and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panpalia and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar Verma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajaydhar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Adil Masood Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

M/S Maurya Brick Works Thru. Its Proprietor Shri Anand Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Avtar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another