Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Dr. Naveen Chandra Gaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Anr.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5041 of 2017

¶3

Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Dr. Naveen Chandra Gaur

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Anr.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Singh, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Vidya Bhushan Pandey, Vikram Kumar

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Applicant-Kalawati and opposite party No.2 are present before this Court and has been identified by their respective counsels.

¶12

Present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶13

"To quash the summoning order dated 17.4.2017 (Annexure No.1 to this petition) issued by the Additional Court No.10, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.4300872 of 2016, R.S. Health & Hospital Care versus Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Limited Kasganj under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as well as entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No.4300872 of 2016 pending in the court of Additional Court No. 10, Lucknow."

¶14

From the material available on record, including the prayer sought in the instant application, quoted above, it is apparent that the dispute relates to a Cheque No. 046608 dated 15.08.2016 of Rs. 1,20,000/- of Central Bank of India, Kasganj, District-Eta.

¶15

After considering the aforesaid as also the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court on 12.05.2025 passed the following order:-

¶16

"1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2,

¶17

learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶18

2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 says that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and they seek some time to file a compromise before this Court bringing on record the said settlement entered into between the parties.

¶19

A482 No. 5041 of 2017

¶20

2

¶21

3. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the parties.

¶22

4. Accordingly, list this case after two weeks."

¶23

Thereafter, on 24.09.2025 the following order was passed by this Court:-

¶24

"1. It appears that applicant has not complied with the order dated 12.05.2025 and today counsel for the applicant submits that he will produce the Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/on 06.10.2025.

¶25

2. List this case on 06.10.2025, on which date applicant will appear in person before this Court along with Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/-, so that the settlement can be arrived at between the parties in pursuance of the order dated 12.05.2025.

¶26

3. Interim order, if any, shall remain in operation till the next date of listing.

¶27

4. In case the direction is not complied with, the interim order will automatically deemed to be vacated on the next date."

¶28

In terms of order(s) aforesaid, a Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been handed over to Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶29

The supplementary affidavit filed in terms of aforesaid order(s) by the applicant is also taken on record.

¶30

Considered the aforesaid as also the note made by Sri Vidya Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the back of application for taking supplementary affidavit on record, which reads as under:-

¶31

"Matter has been settled by the way of compromise and their is no any grievance remain pending being for the same Demand Draft of Rs. 1,20,000/- (One Lakh Twenty Thousand) has been received during the course of day before this Hon'ble Court on 06.10.2025. As per the compromise, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceedings of the present case."

¶32

Upon due consideration of aforesaid as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC

¶33

A482 No. 5041 of 2017

¶34

3

¶35

330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435 , according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings in issue, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

¶36

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶37

October 6, 2025 Vinay/-

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Dr. Naveen Chandra Gaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati Life Care Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Dr. Naveen Chandra Gaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Pramod Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Kripal Alias Nanake Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Anis vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Sitapur Camp at Kheri and 5 Others

Rajneesh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others