2024 Supreme(All) 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Satish Kumar Shukla - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. And Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. - 3649 OF 2024.
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Gaurav Srivastava, Kapil Dev Chaubey
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Kirti Kar Tripathi
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when full payment is made and a compromise is reached, preventing abuse of process and serving the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Full payment made by applicant to opposite party - Compromise reached between parties - Court quashed proceedings of multiple cases under Section 138 N.I. Act and IPC, finding no useful purpose in continuing them - The applicant has complied with the court's orders and made full payment, thus justifying the quashing of proceedings. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Inherent powers of High Court - The High Court retains the authority to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, particularly in cases of private disputes where compromise has been reached. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant made payments totaling Rs. 27 lacs to the opposite party, who confirmed receipt and expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings related to the payments. (Paras 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that since full payment was made and a compromise was reached, continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose. (Paras 12, 14)
Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings should be quashed given the full payment and compromise between the parties. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allow for quashing proceedings when no useful purpose is served, especially in private disputes where a settlement has been reached. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: The present application stands allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
JUDGMENT
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Heard Sri. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri. Kirti Kar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I alongwith Sri. Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. On 04.07.2024, this Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri. Kirti Kar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
This Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 had passed the following order:
"Heard Shri. Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri. Kirti Kar Tripahti, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record.
The applicant, namely-Shri. Satish Kumar Shukla and the opposite party No.2, namely-Ramashish Bhakta are present before this Court in person, who have been identified by their respective counsel.
In compliance of the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by this Court, the applicant has brought an original demand draft of Rs. 6.50 lacs dated 29.05.2024 bearing draft No.510145 drawn in favour of the opposite party No.2, namely-Ramashish Bhakta before this Court to be paid to the opposite party No.2.
On instructions of this Court, the applicant handed over the aforesaid demand draft to the opposite party No.2 in front of this Court and the opposite party No.2 has received the same in original and also signed the photostat copy of the same, which is taken on record.
The opposite party No.2 made a submission before this Court that he alongwith his wife, namely-Parvati Devi have jointly purchased the property in question, thus, he submits on behalf of his wife also that they have no objection if the proceedings of the present case are quashed after the full and final payment is made to them. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by this Court, he has received total sum of Rs. 13.50 lacs i.e. 50% of Rs. 27 lacs and now only second installment i.e. an amount of Rs. 13.50 lacs is remaining to be paid by the applicant.
The applicant submits before this Court that the second installment of Rs. 13.50 lacs will be paid to the opposite party No.2 on 04.07.2024 as directed by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024.
Learned Counsel for the parties have no objection to the aforesaid arrangements made by the respective parties.
Accordingly, list/put up this case on 04.07.2024 before this Court for further orders.
On the next date of listing, the applicant will bring a demand draft of Rs. 13.50 lacs in favour of the opposite party No.2 and they both will again appear before this Court in person.
Interim order, already granted, is extended till the next date of listing. "
The applicant, namely-Shri. Satish Kumar Shukla and the opposite party No.2, namely-Ramashish Bhakta are present before this Court in person, who have been identified by their respective counsel.
Today, the applicant has brought a Bank Draft of Rs. 2 Lakh in favour of Ram Ashish Bhakta bearing No. 510179 dated 04.07.2024 of ICICI Bank. The receiving was given on the photo stat copy of the said Bank Draft, which was duly verified by Sri. Kirti Kar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. The copy of the Bank Draft and its receiving is taken on record. The original draft is giving to the opposite party No.2, namely-Ramashish Bhakta in front of Sri. Kirti Kar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
The applicant, namely, Satish Kumar Shukla submits that he has a land on the highway and is trying to sell it and the negotiation is going on between the parties. He further submits that he will deposit the remaining amount i.e. 11.50 Lakh within a month after se
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
