# Ahuja v. Additional Principal Judge, Family

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1320
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-08
- **Bench:** Sudhir Kumar Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ahuja-v-additional-principal-judge-family-41991
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing of Criminal Proceeding-offence
under Section 147/504/506 IPC 3(i) (x)
of
SC/ST
Act-Parties
settled
their
difference before Mediation Center-on
basis of that Petition disposed of in
terms of compromise-Magistrate taken
view unless case is committed before
Session Court-has no authority to pass
discharge order-held parties can not be
forced
to
face
ordeal
of
criminal
proceeding-when
matter
settled
amicably and accepted bu High Court-by
exercising power under 482, proceeding
quashed.

Held: Para 15

Since purport of the order dated 27th
August,
2009
is
that
criminal
proceedings stood terminated, no useful
purpose would be served by committing
the case to the court of session. Powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always be
utilized for giving effect to the orders
passed by the court in the ends of
justice. Since, the matter before the
Meditation Center has been amicably
settled and that has been accepted by
this Court, it will be useless to remand
the matter and force the parties to face
ordeal of the criminal proceedings.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 1509(M/S) of 2009(Rohit
Ahuja Vs. Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow and Another); (2008) 9 SCC
677; (2008) 4 SCC 582; (2008) 16 SCC 1

## Text

1320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

87. Before parting, we deem it
necessary to mention that the specific
prayer of direction to the State for
merging the erstwhile departments of
health and family welfare has been made
in writ petition no. 2647 (M/B) of 2011.
The departments have already been
merged during the pendency of the instant
petitions.
No
direction
is
therefore
needed.

88. Also, the credentials of Sri
Jagdish Narain Shukla were questioned
by the State and also U.P.S.I.C. It is not
necessary for us to enter into the said
issue since we have already entrusted the
instant matter to CBI while dealing with
other writ petitions.

89. Petitions accordingly stand
disposed. No costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA,J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4565 of 2011

Shiva Kant Mishra and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisar Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing of Criminal Proceeding-offence
under Section 147/504/506 IPC 3(i) (x)
of
SC/ST
Act-Parties
settled
their
difference before Mediation Center-on
basis of that Petition disposed of in
terms of compromise-Magistrate taken
view unless case is committed before
Session Court-has no authority to pass
discharge order-held parties can not be
forced
to
face
ordeal
of
criminal
proceeding-when
matter
settled
amicably and accepted bu High Court-by
exercising power under 482, proceeding
quashed.

Held: Para 15

Since purport of the order dated 27th
August,
2009
is
that
criminal
proceedings stood terminated, no useful
purpose would be served by committing
the case to the court of session. Powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always be
utilized for giving effect to the orders
passed by the court in the ends of
justice. Since, the matter before the
Meditation Center has been amicably
settled and that has been accepted by
this Court, it will be useless to remand
the matter and force the parties to face
ordeal of the criminal proceedings.
Case law discussed:
Writ Petition No. 1509(M/S) of 2009(Rohit
Ahuja Vs. Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow and Another); (2008) 9 SCC
677; (2008) 4 SCC 582; (2008) 16 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J. )

1. Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned AGA as well as
learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2.

2. This petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal
proceedings in Case no. 6818 of 2002,
under Sections 147/504/506 IPC and
Section 3(I)(X) of the SC/ST Act. The
matter was referred to Mediation and
3 All] Shiva Kant Mishra and others V. The State of U.P.and another
1321
Conciliation Center by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.K. Singh vide order dated 28-042009. It appears from the report of the
Mediation Centre that both the parties
have settled the dispute and decided not to
proceed with the case any further and
both the parties have submitted an
application
in the
above
case
for
termination of the entire proceedings in
terms of the compromise. Terms of the
settlement
are
being
quoted
herein
below:-

1) "That on the basis of the first
information
report
lodged
by
the
petitioner no. 3 Sri Shailesh Kumar Rai a
case crime no. 1243 of 2001, under
Section 384, 353, 504, 506 IPC was
registered against the second party in the
P.S. Kotwali Lakhimpuri Kheri on 06-122001.

2) That on the basis of first
information report, lodged by the second
party/respondent no. 2 Sri Lekhram
Bharti, Case Crime No. 445 of 2002,
under Section 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act was registered
in P.S. Kotwali Kheri, Distt. Lakhimpur
Kheri against the first party/petitioners on
14-05-2002.

3)
That
first
party
are
the
Government servants and the second
party is the Sampadak, Hindi Saptahik,
Kheri Tiger.

4) That both the parties have settled
their case and have decided to not to
proceed with the case any further. The
cases against each of the party were
registered due to some misunderstanding.
Both the parties have submitted an
application in the above case for
termination of the entire proceedings in
terms of compromise."

3. It is specified in para-7 of report
of the Mediation Centre that all the
disputes and differences in respect of
Criminal Misc. Case No. 4076 of 2007(
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) have been
amicably settled by the parties.

4. In the light of the aforesaid
settlement, the petition was disposed of
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh
vide order dated 27th August, 2009. The
said order is quoted hereinbelow:

"Learned counsel from both the sides
are present. Fortunately, the dispute has
been settled between the parties in the
Mediation and Conciliation center of this
Court, as per settlement agreement
(annexure-E)

This
petition
is
disposed
of
accordingly in terms of compromise."

5. It is apparent from the above
order that petition was disposed of in
terms of the compromise which very
categorically intended to terminate the
criminal proceedings going on between
the parties.

6. Sri I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the dispute having been
settled
through
compromise,
the
Magistrate was not justified in forcing the
presence of petitioners enabling him to
commit the case. He has relied upon a
decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.
1509(M/S) of 2009(Rohit Ahuja Vs.
Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow and Another).
1322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

7. Sri R.K. Dwivedi, learned AGA
strongly opposed the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner, by saying that
the aforesaid judgment pertains to the
civil matter and as such, the judgment
which deals with Section 89 of C.P.C. has
no application to the present case. He
further submits that the Magistrate has no
power to pass any order in the matter as
the case is triable by Sessions Court, as
such, and he had no option but to commit
the case to court of session.

8. Argument of AGA has substance.
It is true that the offence being exclusive
triable by Sessions Court, Magistrate has
no authority to discharge the accused
persons or pass any order whereby
accused would stand acquitted.

9. However, this Court can pass
such an order in the interest of justice.
The dispute was between Shiv Kant
Mishra, Shailesh Kumar Rai and Lakhram
Bharti. This dispute was purely personal
in nature. Since parties have settled the
matter by way of compromise, no useful
purpose would be served by requiring the
parties to undergo the ordeal of criminal
trial where parties may have to be forced
to give false statements as well, in order
to escape the clutches of law. In the
opinion of the Court, matter being purely
personal in nature and parties having
buried their disputes amicably, it would
be futile exercise to direct the parties to
appear, go to jail and then press the
compromise before the court below.
Magistrate may be justified in taking the
ground that it has no power to compound
the case which is not compoundable.
However, in such a situation, this Court
cannot not remain silent spectator and
perhaps with a view to meet such an
eventuality, inherent powers of the Courts
have been saved.

10. In the case of Nikhil Merchant
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another (2008) 9 SCC 677, Hon'ble Apex
Court was dealing with the case where the
parties have entered into compromise and
it was agreed that all the allegations and
counter allegations would be withdrawn.
In para 31 of the judgment the Apex
Court observed that the continuation of
the
criminal
proceedings
after
compromise would be a futile exercise.
Para 31 of the said judgment is quoted
herein below:-

On an overall view of the facts as
indicated hereinabove and keeping in
mind the decision of this Court in B.S.
Joshi case and the compromise arrived at
between the Company and the Bank as
also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed
in the suit filed by the Bank, we are
satisfied that this is a fit case where
technicality should not be allowed to
stand in the way in the quashing of the
criminal proceedings, since, in our view,
the continuance of the same after the
compromise arrived at between the
parties would be a futile exercise.

11. In the case of Madan Mohan
Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4
SCC 582, Hon'ble Apex court observed in
para-6 of the judgment that the disputes
which involved the question of purely
personal
in
nature,
Court
should
ordinarily accept the terms of compromise
even in the criminal proceedings. This
approach has been found to be common
sense approach based on ground realities.
Para -6 of the judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow.:
3 All] Shiva Kant Mishra and others V. The State of U.P.and another
1323

We need to emphasize that it is
perhaps advisable that in disputes where
the question involved is of a purely
personal
nature,
the
court
should
ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromise even in criminal proceedings
as keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the courts,
grossly overburdened as they are, cannot
afford and that the time so saved can be
utilized in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common
sense approach to the matter based on
ground realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law.

12. In the case of Manoj Sharma
Vs. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1,
Hon'ble Apex Court considering the B.S.
Joshis' Case 2004(9) SCC 47, observed
that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit the
discretion of the Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

In para-8 of the said judgment,
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "it
is no doubt true that the first information
report was the basis of the investigation
by the police authorities, but the dispute
between the parties remained one of the
personal nature. Once the complainant
decided not to pursue the matter further,
the High Court could have taken a more
pragmatic view of the matter. What we
do say that the matter could have been
considered by the High Court with
greater pragmatism in the fact of the
case."

In para-27, Hon'ble Court observed
that " however in some other cases(like
those akin to a civil nature), the
proceedings can be quashed by the High
Court if parties have come to an
amicable settlement even though the
provisions are not compoundable."

13. From the above, it is apparent
that if dispute is akin to civil nature or is
purely personal in nature involving no
public policy, Court would be justified in
quashing criminal proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if offences are
non-compoundable.
Of
course,
one
relevant consideration could be the
probabilities of the conviction, apart
from saving the valuable time of the
Courts. Of course, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in this respect and each
case will have to be considered on the
facts of the case; as there may be cases
though personal in nature but affecting
the society at large, having wide
ramifications involving morals, values,
national interests etc. Therefore, the
common sense or pragmatism as advised
by Hon'ble Apex Court could be utilized
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case with a view to prevent the abuse
of the process of the court and in the
ends of justice.

14. In view of above, this Court
finds
that
the
parties
having
compromised the dispute, Court having
disposed of the writ petition in the light
of the compromise, no useful purpose
would be served by continuing the
prosecution, as such the petition is liable
to be allowed.

15. Since purport of the order dated
27th August, 2009 is that criminal
proceedings stood terminated, no useful
purpose would be served by committing
the case to the court of session. Powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always be
utilized for giving effect to the orders
passed by the court in the ends of justice.
1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Since, the matter before the Meditation
Center has been amicably settled and that
has been accepted by this Court, it will
be useless to remand the matter and force
the parties to face ordeal of the criminal
proceedings.

16. In view of above, the petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and
criminal proceedings in Case No. 6818
of 2002(State of U.P. Vs. Surendra
Mishra and Ors.) arising out of Case
Crime No. 445 of 2002, under Sections
147, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X)
of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Kotwali Sadar,
District-Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby
quashed
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA,J.

Misc. Single No. - 4735 of 2008

Vijay Kumar Yadav

 ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.Through Secretary Civil
Supply Civil Secretariat ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N.Singh Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of Natural Justice-cancellation
of license of Fair Price Shop-without
supplying the copy of complaint and the
enquiry
report-held-entails
civil
consequences-every authority exercising
quashi-judicial duty is bound to follow
the principle of Natural Justice-order not
sustainable-Petition
allowed
on
this
limited ground.

Held: Para 34

Thus
from
the series
of
decisions,
referred
to
herein-above,
it
clearly
comes out that the preliminary enquiry
report, inspection report or complaint or
any other document which is utilized by
the authority while cancelling the licence
of a fair price shop licence, same has to
be supplied to the licence holder and
personal hearing is also to be afforded
otherwise the proceedings would be in
blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice.
Case law discussed:
[2000(18) LCD 321]; 1993 (1) ALR 121; 2008
(3) ADJ 36; AIR 1964 SC 72; (1999) 1 SCC
741; 2009 (1) ADJ 379 (DB); (1993) 3 SCC
259; (1998) 7 SCC 66; JT 1996 (3) SC 722;
2001 (19) LCD 513; 2006 (24) LCD 1521;
2008 (16) LCD 891; [2011 (29) LCD 626]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. )

1. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the
impugned orders dated 24.07.2008 passed
by the respondent no.2 and order dated
08.04.2006/19.04.2006
passed
by
the
respondent no.4 contained in Annexure nos.
1 and 2 in the writ petition and also for
issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to give
effect the aforesaid impugned orders as well
as not to initiate the process for fresh
allotment of shop.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the
parties.

3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop
licensee and the question involved in this
case is as to whether non-furnishing the
copy of the complaint or preliminary
enquiry report or the inspection report or
any other document, which has been
utilized against the Fair Price Shop licensee
while cancelling the licence, amounts to