# Ghanshyam Das & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 181
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1663 of 2016
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-das-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48984
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
452,
504,
506,
379-Quashing
of
summoning
order-matrimonial
disputeapplicants as well as opposite party no. 2
filed several suit against each other only
with intend to create undue pressureInformant being educated person filed FIR
against the applicants-Courts are used as
a tool of harassment-Legal awareness
does
not
mean
frivolous/vexatious
litigations
and
such
litigations
are
consuming the precious time of Courtsmatter was pending since 2015, and the
entire dispute has been compromised in
2022-no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceeding of the instant
case-Thus, the entire proceedings are
quashed on the basis of compromise.(Para
1 to 22)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Ghanshyam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
only one of them proceeds and adjudicate.
This is the purport and objective behind
sub-section (2) to Section 124 of the Act."

22. The aforesaid judgement of Delhi
High Court only supports the view taken by
us herein above.

23. No other point has been argued
before us by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

24. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 181
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1663 of 2016

Ghanshyam Das & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Sri Ansar Ahmad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bhavisya Sharma, Sri Raj Kumar
Mishra

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 149,
452,
504,
506,
379-Quashing
of
summoning
order-matrimonial
disputeapplicants as well as opposite party no. 2
filed several suit against each other only
with intend to create undue pressureInformant being educated person filed FIR
against the applicants-Courts are used as
a tool of harassment-Legal awareness
does
not
mean
frivolous/vexatious
litigations
and
such
litigations
are
consuming the precious time of Courtsmatter was pending since 2015, and the
entire dispute has been compromised in
2022-no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceeding of the instant
case-Thus, the entire proceedings are
quashed on the basis of compromise.(Para
1 to 22)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & anr.. (2003)
4 SCC 675

2. NiKhil Merchant Vs C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 677

3. Manoj Sharma Vs St. & ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2012) 10 SCC 303

5. Narindra Singh & ors. St. of Punj. (2014) 6
SCC 466

6. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019)
AIR SC 1296
7. Shaifullah & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2013)
83 ACC 278

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2, learned A.G.A for the State and
also perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants
with a prayer to quash the summoning
order dated 17.12.2015 as well as entire
proceedings of Misc. Case No. 137 of 2015
(Tej Singh Verma vs. Ghanshyam Das and
others) (Case No.3648 of 2015), under
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 379
IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District
Etawah, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

3. The facts of the present case is that
marriage of applicant no.5 solemnized with
son of opposite party no.2 according to
Hindu Rites and Rituals on 30.11.2013.
Thereafter, applicant no.5 namely, Shalu
Patel lodged the first information report
against opposite party no.2 on 05.07.2014
in Case Crime No.316 of 2014, under
Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC. Investigating
Officer submitted charge sheet against
opposite
party
no.2
on
31.07.2014.
Subsequently, complaint was filed by
opposite party no.2 against the applicants
on 10.03.2015, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
in Case Crime No.116 of 2015, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506,
307, 379 IPC, with the allegation that on
05.07.2014, applicants entered in the house
of opposite party no.2 having lathi and
danda in their hands and committed marpeet with opposite party no.2 and his
family members. Investigating Officer
submitted a final report on 20.04.2015.
Thereafter, learned court below issued
notice to opposite party no.2 as such
opposite party no.2 filed protest petition
under Section 190(1)B Cr.P.C. against the
aforesaid final report. Thereafter, learned
court below only on the basis of statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
without recording statement of opposite
party no.2 and other witnesses, applicants
were summoned. Investigating Officer
submitted final report on the basis of
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C.

4. Perused the impugned order dated
17.12.2015 by which final report no.88 of
2015 dated 20.04.2015 relating to Crime
No.116 of 2015 has been rejected and
protest petition of the applicants has been
accepted and applicants Ghansyam Das,
Ashok, Ram Chandra @ Rammo, Vinay
Patel, Shalu Patel and Shibhu has been
summoned under Sections 147, 148, 149,
452, 504, 506, 379 IPC and cognizance has
been taken under Section 190(1)(b). This
shows that after investigation, final report
has been filed and applicants have been
summoned on the basis of protest petition
filed by the complainant Tej Singh Verma,
who is retired lecturer.

5.

During
pendency
of
this
application, learned counsel for the parties
contended that dispute between the parties
have been amicably settled outside the
court
by
way
of
compromise.
Consequently, a compromise application
has been filed before court below and this
Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 directed
for verification of the compromise filed by
the parties which was duly verified by the
court concerned on 10.05.2022 and report
from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has
been sent to this Court on 17.05.2022.

6. It is submitted that no useful
purpose shall be served by prolonging the
proceedings of above mentioned case.
Learned counsel for applicants further
submits that interest of justice shall better
be served in case entire proceeding of
above mentioned case are quashed by this
Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of
relegating the parties to court below.

7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel representing opposite party no.2
could not oppose the submissions urged by
learned counsel for applicants. Learned
counsel for informant/opposite party no.2
further contends that once opposite party
9 All. Ghanshyam Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
no.2 has himself compromised the dispute
with applicants and in pursuance thereof,
he submitted a joint application before
court concerned praying therein that case
be decided on the basis of compromise, he
cannot have any objection in case the
matter is finally decided on the basis of
said compromise. He has further invited the
attention of the Court that opposite party
no.2/informant was present at the time of
verification of compromise.

9. This Court is not unmindful of
the following judgements of Apex Court:

i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs.
State of Haryana and another (2003)4
SCC 675

ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State
and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

v. Narindra Singh and others
Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi
Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]

8. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex
Court
has
categorically
held
that
compromise can be made between the
parties even in respect of certain cognizable
and non compoundable offences. Reference
may also be made to the decision given by
this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs.
State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC
278] in which the law expounded by the
Apex
court.
Various
litigations
are
pending/decided between parties detailed
as under :

9. From the perusal of record, it
appears that one criminal case no.1925 of
2015 (State vs. Nikhil Verma and others),
Case Crime No.316 of 2014 under Sections
498A, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District
Etawah has been decided by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 29.01.2019
and accused were acquitted. Another case
was Hindu Marriage Act bearing Case
No.555 of 2018 under Section 13(B) of
Hindu Marriage Act has been decided on
28.08.2019, in which, marriage of Smt.
Shalu Patel and Nikhil Verma has been
dissolved. Another case no.658 of 2014
(Smt. Shalu Patel vs. Nikhil Verma), under
Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act
comes to an end on 10.12.2018 and
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
been rejected on 10.12.2018. Complaint
Case no.6595 of 2017 (Tej Singh Verma vs.
Ghanshyam Das), under Section 500 IPC
has been disposed of on 07.01.2019 as
withdrawn. One case has been filed by
Nikhil Verma under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act numbered as HMA No.20 of
2018 which has been dismissed as not
pressed. Criminal Case No.4172 of 2016
(State vs. Saurabh Verma) under Sections
504, 506 IPC has been decided by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 02.02.2019
and accused were acquitted under Sections
504, 506 IPC.

10. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, as noted herein
above, and also the submissions made by
the counsel for the parties, the court is of
the considered opinion that no useful
purpose shall be served by prolonging the
proceedings of above mentioned case. It is
also submitted that case has also been
compromised
relating
to
matrimonial
dispute.

11. As mentioned above, applicants as
well as opposite party no.2 has filed several
suit/applications against each other only
with intend to create undue pressure. Such
sort of unwarranted litigations create
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
burden over our judicial system. Courts are
overburdened by such sort of litigations
especially relating to family matters. Courts
are used as a tool of harassment. Precious
time
of
Courts
consumed
by
such
frivolous/vexatious litigations and due to
paucity of time substantial litigations are
delayed. Frivolous/vexatious incoming of
cases should be checked. Legal awareness
does
not
mean
frivolous/vexatious
litigations.
Litigations
should
be
for
genuine cause/relief. Informant Tej Singh
Verma, who is retired lecturer is well
educated person. He has filed FIR against
the applicants and after lodging the FIR
police machinery came into motion and
investigation has been completed by the
police and final report has been filed.
Thereafter, protest petition has been filed
by the informant and on protest petition,
applicant has been summoned by the
concerned
court.
Thereafter,
case
is
pending since 2015 and accused persons
(applicants) had approached this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
impugned order dated 17.12.2015 in 2016
and thereafter, entire dispute has been
compromised in 2022. The exercise made
by the informant has created burden on the
system.

12. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the proceedings
of Misc. case No. 137 of 2015 (Case
No.3648 of 2015), under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police
Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah, is
hereby quashed on the basis of compromise
and the present application is allowed,
subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- as
exemplary cost upon the applicants and
opposite party no.2 each. The total amount
of cost is Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited in
the account of District Legal Services
Authority, Etawah within a period of three
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. This amount
shall be utilized for benefit of the litigants
according to the satisfaction of Chairman,
District Legal Services Authority, Etawah.
Trial Court shall ensure the deposition of
the said amount, before consigning the
record. In default of payment of cost
directed as above, order shall be deemed
vacated automatically.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 40942 of 2017
&
Application U/S 482 No. 40821 of 2017

Atul Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri Pankaj Sharma, Sri Sati
Shanker Tripathi, Sri Sujit Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Pankaj Govil, Sri
Praveen Kumar Singh, Sri Syed Imran
Ibrahim

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 & 506-Quashing of entire criminal
proceedings-Complainant and his wife had
commercial
relationship
with
accused
persons-they entered into an agreement
with expectation of profit of amount
deposited in terms of flats and share, later
there was a breach of conditions, the
Complainant had taken remedy available