# 353 (State of M.P v. Awadh

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-18
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 3330 of 1982
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/353-state-of-m-p-v-awadh-40784
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure Order XXIII-rule3-Compromise-in
pending
Second
Appeal-both
parties
jointly
moved
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
application-duly
supported
with
affidavit-praying
the
appeal
to
be
decided in terms of compromise-Trial
Court verified in presence of partiesheld-Appeal be decided in terms of
Compromise-the compromise application
accompanying affidavit will be part of
Decree.

Held: Para 10

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the
opinion that it is in the interest of justice
that the Second Appeal be decided in
terms of the compromise, copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure 1 to the said
affidavit
accompanying
the
aforementioned application.

## Text

3All] Noor Ahmad and another V. Iftikhar Uddin 1187
rightly initiated or not, can not be
germane in a situation where payment has
already
been
made.
Therefore,
the
petitioners have acted upon on the basis
of the first information report, which is
not only related to Section 420 I.P.C.
alone but also under Sections 467, 468
and 479 I.P.C. It is to be remembered that
in a judgement reported in 2004 SCC
(Cri) 353 (State of M.P. Vs. Awadh
Kishore Gupta and others) again the
Supreme Court held that it is not proper
for the High Court to analyse the case of
the complainant in the light of all
probabilities
in
order
to
determine
whether
a
conviction
would
be
sustainable and on such premises, arrive
at a conclusion that the proceedings are to
be quashed. It is erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the
complaint can not be proceeded with.
Although such order was passed in
connection with an application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, but in the cases of quashing of
the
first
information
report
much
weightage can be given towards the
proceedings of Section 482 Cr.P.C. than
the Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

8. Therefore, having cumulative
effect of both the judgements first
information report can not be said to be
quashed at this stage. However, in the
interest of justice petitioners can be
protected in the following manner.

9. The Investigating Officer of Case
Crime No. 853 of 2005, under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police
Station Kanth, District Moradabad will
conclude the investigation within a period
of three months from the date, on which a
certified copy of this order is presented
before him. The petitioners are directed to
co-operate with the Investigating Officer
in all possible manner. If the Investigating
Officer or informant found himself
aggrieved
due
to
falsification,
misstatement, fraud, non-cooperation with
the Investigating Officer or any other
reasons whatsoever relevant for the
purpose, he is at liberty to apply for
recalling/variation/ vacating/ modification
of the order. However, the petitioners will
not be arrested in the above mentioned
case crime number till the submission of
the charge-sheet/final report, if any.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands disposed of.

However, no order is passed as to
cost.

 Petition Disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Second Appeal No. 3330 of 1982

Noor Ahmad and another ...Defendant-

 Appellants
Versus
Iftikhar Uddin ...Plaintiff-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Neeraj Agarwal
Sri J.N. Singh
Sri Anil Shukla
Sri N.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri M.A. Zaidi

Code of Civil Procedure Order XXIII-rule3-Compromise-in
pending
Second
Appeal-both
parties
jointly
moved
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
application-duly
supported
with
affidavit-praying
the
appeal
to
be
decided in terms of compromise-Trial
Court verified in presence of partiesheld-Appeal be decided in terms of
Compromise-the compromise application
accompanying affidavit will be part of
Decree.

Held: Para 10

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the
opinion that it is in the interest of justice
that the Second Appeal be decided in
terms of the compromise, copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure 1 to the said
affidavit
accompanying
the
aforementioned application.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. Case called out in the revised list.

Sri Neeraj Agarwal, learned counsel
for the defendants-appellants is present.
However, Sri M.A. Zaidi, learned counsel
for the plaintiff-respondent is not present.

2. It appears that Civil Misc.
Application No. 1575 of 1990 (dated
21.3.1990) was filed under Order XXIII,
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
jointly on behalf of the defendantsappellants and the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The said application was signed
by the then learned counsel for the
defendants-appellants as well as the then
learned
counsel
for
the
plaintiffrespondent. It was, inter-alia, prayed in
the said application that the Second
Appeal
be
decided
in
terms
of
compromise and the parties be directed to
bear their own costs.

4. The said application was
accompanied by an affidavit, sworn
jointly by Noor Ahmad (defendantappellant
no.1)
and
Iftikhar
Uddin
(plaintiff-respondent) on 19th March
1990. Photostat copy of the compromise
was filed as Annexure 1 to the said
affidavit.

5. By the order dated 14.12.1999,
this Court directed that the compromise
be sent to the Court below for its
verification.

The said order dated 14.12.1999 is
reproduced below:

"The compromise has been filed by
the parties and the same requires
verification. Send it for its verification to
the Court below.
List after three months."

6. Pursuant to the said order
14.12.1999, the aforesaid application and
its accompanying affidavit, including
annexure thereto, in original, were sent to
the Court below for verification.

7. In compliance with the directions
given in the said order dated 14.12.1999,
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kasganj,
District
Etah
sent
a
communication dated 10th March 2000 to
the Registry of this Court. It was, interalia, stated in the said communication
dated 10th March 2000 that the said
compromise had been verified in presence
of the parties by the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Kasganj, District Etah.

8.

Alongwith
the
said
communication,
the
aforementioned
papers sent from this Court, including
copy of the compromise, were also
returned to the Registry of this Court.
3All] Harish Chandra V. Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad and others 1189
9. A perusal of the notings on the
back-side of Page 2 of the copy of the
compromise, filed as annexure 1 to the
said
affidavit
accompanying
the
aforementioned application, shows that
the parties have acknowledged having
entered into the said compromise, and the
same has been duly verified by the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kasganj, District Etah.

10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of
the opinion that it is in the interest of
justice that the Second Appeal be decided
in terms of the compromise, copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure 1 to the said
affidavit
accompanying
the
aforementioned application.

11.

The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, decided in terms of the
compromise, copy whereof has been filed
as Annexure 1 to the said affidavit
accompanying
the
aforementioned
application. The said compromise will
form part of the decree.

12. The parties will bear their own
costs.
Decided
in
terms
of
compromise.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARTI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42245 of 2003

Harish Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner
Moradabad
Region
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.N. Tripathi
Sri P.S. Baghel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijendra Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Govt.
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal Rules, 1999, Rule-7-Constitution
of India Art. 311 (2)-Dismissal-petitioner
a lekhpal recommend 36 persons-for
allotment of land during consolidation
period-recommendation made on the
basis of Govt. order-out of 36 only 22
persons allotment approved by S.D.O.-
even the dispossession of these alloties
stayed by High Court the authorities who
had
inquired
and
approved-not
subjected to submit their explanation
even-order of major punishment passed
without giving the copy of inquiry report,
the list of witness-without show cause
notice-without oral evidence-held-order
wholly
perverse
punishment
order
quashed-without back wages-conclude
the enquiry after giving full opportunity
till
the
conclusion
of
disciplinary
proceeding
shall
be
treated
under
suspension.

Held: Para 21

There is also substance in the argument
of the petitioner that under the U.P.
Government
Servants
Discipline
and
Appeal Rules, 1999, it was mandatory
that the provisions of Rule 7 should have
been complied with while imposing a
major punishment on the petitioner. Had
it been a case of imposition of minor
punishment, the position would have
been different. But here, in this case,
when the petitioner was visited with the
evil consequences of termination, the
minimum to be observed in the enquiry
was that the petitioner should have been
given the documentary evidence, which
was against him, and also the names of
witnesses should have been revealed in
the charge sheet itself. This was not
done.
2003 (8) SCC-9
2001 (2) UPLBEC-1475