# Case No. 1422 of 2003 (Raj Kumar v. Deena Nath & others), pending in the

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 792
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 14172 of 2004
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/case-no-1422-of-2003-raj-kumar-v-deena-nath-others-pending-in-the-41208
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482Quashing
of
complaint
case-offence
under Sections 417, 467, 471, 504 I.P.C.-
dispute personal in nature-settled out of
the Court-no reason to disbelief the facts
stated in Counter affidavit-held-if the
proceeding allowed to continue-amount
to abuse the process of Court-proceeding
of complaint Case Quashed.

Held: Para 6

Having regard to the observations made
in the rulings mentioned herein-above, I
am of the opinion that it would be an
abuse of the process of the Court, if the
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants is allowed to continue, as the
dispute was of personal nature, which
has been settled out side the court by
means of compromise. Therefore, to do
the complete justice, the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, [2006(30)
JIC 135 (Alld)], 2005 (51) ACC 21, 2007 (59)
ACC 123. 2007 (59) ACC 148, 2007 (57) ACC
981

## Text

792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
the cities provided in the aforementioned
G.Os where they are in fact 'working'.

17. I, therefore, have no hesitation in
holding that denial of CCA and HRA at
the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar to the
petitioners is clearly erroneous, illegal and
arbitrary and is not consistent with
various G.Os, under which the aforesaid
two
allowances
are
admissible
as
discussed above.

18. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled
to HRA and CCA at the rate admissible at
Kanpur Nagar so long as Judgeship of
Kanpur Dehat is functioning at Kanpur
Nagar. The impugned orders dated
1.4.2008, passed by District Judge,
Kanpur Dehat and dated 22.2.2008 issued
by the State Government are accordingly
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled
to costs which is quantified at Rs.2000/-.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 14172 of
2004
And
Criminal Misc. Application No. 59 of 2005

Ramapati Mishra

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.K. Shukla
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482Quashing
of
complaint
case-offence
under Sections 417, 467, 471, 504 I.P.C.-
dispute personal in nature-settled out of
the Court-no reason to disbelief the facts
stated in Counter affidavit-held-if the
proceeding allowed to continue-amount
to abuse the process of Court-proceeding
of complaint Case Quashed.

Held: Para 6

Having regard to the observations made
in the rulings mentioned herein-above, I
am of the opinion that it would be an
abuse of the process of the Court, if the
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants is allowed to continue, as the
dispute was of personal nature, which
has been settled out side the court by
means of compromise. Therefore, to do
the complete justice, the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, [2006(30)
JIC 135 (Alld)], 2005 (51) ACC 21, 2007 (59)
ACC 123. 2007 (59) ACC 148, 2007 (57) ACC
981

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

By means of these applications under
section 482 of the code of Criminal
Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), the
applicants Ramapati Mishra and Deena
Nath
have
invoked
the
inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, praying for
quashing of the proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 1422 of 2003 (Raj Kumar vs.
Deena Nath & others), pending in the
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate Gyanpur (Bhadohi).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., in
both these cases are that Raj Kumar
3 All] Ramapati Mishra V. State of U.P. and another
793
Mishra (Opposite party No. 2 herein) had
filed a complaint in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Ghaypur (Bhadohi) on 07.07.2003, which
was registered as complaint Case No.
1422 of 2003. The allegations made in the
complaint, in brief, are that the accused
Deena Nath in collusion with the accused
Rama Pati Mishra playing fraud executed
a sale deed of plot No. 149 in favour of
the
complainant
after
receiving
Rs.30,000/-, whereas he was not the
owner of this plot. After recording the
statement of the complainant under
section 200 Cr.P.C. and taking evidence
under section 202 Cr.P.C., the accused
Deena
Nath
and
Ramapati
were
summoned to face the trial under section
417, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC vide
order dated 16.08.2003. Against that
summoning order, objections were filed
by the applicants in the court of
magistrate concerned, who declined to
recall the summoning order. Thereafter
criminal revision was filed by the
applicants challenging the summoning
order, but the said revision was dismissed
being not pressed vide order dated
27.11.2004. Now the applicants-accused
have come to this court for quashing the
proceedings of complaint case mentioned
herein-above.

3. Heard argument of Sri P.N.
Tripathi Advocate appearing for the
applicants, Sri H.K. Shukla learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2/complainant
and learned AGA for the State.

4. It was submitted by learned
counsel for the parties that the dispute is
of personal nature, which has been settled
by the parties outside the court and hence
the proceedings of complaint case should
be quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., as
continuance of the said proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court. For this submission, the parties
counsel have placed reliance on the cases
of B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of
Haryana & another (2003) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 675 and Ausaf Ahmad
Abbasi & ors. vs. State of U.P. &
another.[2006(30) JIC 135 (Alld)].

5. The complainant/ O.P. No. 2 Raj
Kumar has filed counter affidavit in Crl.
Misc. Application No. 59 of 2004. It is
alleged in the said counter affidavit that
the parties have entered into compromise
and in pursuance of that compromise, the
accused have made part payment to the
deponent and have given assurance to
make remaining payment after withdrawl
of the complaint by the deponent. It is
prayed in para 6 of the counter affidavit
that criminal proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 1422 of 2003 be quashed. In
para 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated
that the complainant/ deponent dose not
want to prosecute the complaint in view
of the compromise entered into between
the parties. There is no reason to
disbelieve the averments made in the
counter
affidavit
and
since
the
complainant himself does not want to
prosecute his complaint and has made
request to quash the proceedings of his
complaint case, hence keeping in view the
observations made in cases of B.S. Joshi
vs. State of Haryana and Ausaf Ahmad
Abbasi
vs.
State
of
U.P.
(supra),
proceedings
of
the
complaint
case
referred to above may be quashed by this
Court on its inherent jurisdiction. In the
case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar
Agrawal & others 2005 (51) ACC 21, the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
quashed
the
proceedings of the criminal case due to
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
the compromise entered into between the
parties. Following this case, this court in
the case of Shikha Singh & others vs.
State of U.P. & another 2007 (59) ACC
123. quashed the proceedings of criminal
case due to the compromise entered into
between the parties. Similarly in the case
of Dinesh Kumar Jain & others vs. State
of U.P. & Others 2007 (59) ACC 148,
this court has quashed the proceedings of
the criminal case under section 498A,
323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act due to
the compromise entered into between the
parties in the proceedings under section
125 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this case has been
placed on B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana
(supra). In the case of Ganga Charan
Rajpoot vs. State of U.P. & others 2007
(57) ACC 981,the proceedings of criminal
case was quashed by the Court due to the
compromise entered into between the
parties outside the court.

6. Having regard to the observations
made in the rulings mentioned hereinabove, I am of the opinion that it would
be an abuse of the process of the Court, if
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants is allowed to continue, as the
dispute was of personal nature, which has
been settled out side the court by means
of compromise. Therefore, to do the
complete justice, the proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Consequently, the applications
under section 482 Cr.P.C. in both the
cases are allowed and proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 (Raj
Kumar vs. Deena Nath & others), under
sections 417, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506
IPC, pending in the court of Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
Gyanpur
(Bhadohi), are hereby quashed.

This order will form part of Crl.
Misc. Application No. 14172 of 2004 and
a copy thereof will be kept on record of
Crl. Misc. Application No. 59 of 2005.

The office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Gyanpur (Bhadohi)
for necessary action.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Special Appeal No.1080 of 2002

Satya Narain Sharma

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art 226-Pensionpetitioner
retired
prior
to
the
commencement of G.O. 18.10.97-which
provides benefit of pension who retired
prior
to
that-claim
of
petitioner/Appellant for counting the
service period of Junior High School
working
w.e.f.
25.7.59
to
13.9.69
rejected
by
the
authorities
learned
Single
Judge
rightly
dismissed
the
petition in view of D.S. Nakkara's case
para 14-if the provision of pension not
applicable on the date of retirement-not
entitled for the benefit claimed.

Held: Para 9