# Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1082 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-12 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamleshwar-kumar-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44134 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day in Case No.611/IX/2015 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2013 under Section 3/7 Esse ## Text 1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1082 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 24116 Of 2016 Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Gyanendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.1800/2008 (Brijbhan Singh Vs. Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur. The complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging that the cheque issued by the applicant in his favour was dishonoured and despite service of legal notice, the amount was not paid. The trial court took cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 418, 420 IPC. Thereafter, the parties entered into a compromise outside the court. The complainant filed an application along with affidavit stating that he does not want to prosecute the case any further due to compromise. However, the trial court did not dispose of the said application and continued the proceedings, issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. The Court observed that the trial court was erroneously continuing the proceedings under Sections 418 and 420 IPC along with Section 138 NI Act. In view of the compromise between the parties, there is no possibility of any evidence coming on record to prove the offence. The dispute is purely civil in nature and does not involve any heinous offence having societal impact. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Held: Para- Relying upon G. Sagar Suri & another Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2000 Cri.L.J. 824 (SC), the Court held that when the parties have compromised the matter, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings of Complaint Case No.1800/2008 under Sections 418, 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act are hereby quashed. Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 8 All. Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1083 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. Complaint case no. 1800/2008 (Brijbhan Singh Vs. Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi) was filed when cheque issued by accused Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi in favour of complainant Brijbhan Singh was dishonoured and he had not paid amount of cheque after legal notice served on him. The cognizance for summoning the accused was taken by trial court for offences under section 138 N.I. Act and sections 418 and 420 IPC. Certified copies of documents produced before this Court show that parties had compromised the matter outside the court, and thereafter complainant Brijbhan Singh had moved application and affidavit before trial court with prayer that on the basis of compromise, he does not want to prosecute the case, which may be dismissed. But said application was not disposed of by trial court, the apparent reason for which appears that accused was absent in spite of non-bailable warrant issued against him. These proceedings are challenged by applicant, the accused of original case, through present application under section 482 CrPC. 3. In 2000 Cri. L.J. 824, G. Sagar Suri & another Vs. State of U.P. & others, the Apex Court had held as under:- "A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the negotaible Instrument Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed, which we do." 4. Thus, it appears that trial court was erroneously prosecuting the applicant accused for offence under sections 418, 420 IPC and matter should have been prosecuted only for offence under section 138 N.I. Act. The trial for this offence under section 138 N.I. Act is carried out as summons trial, in which in absence of complainant or by not pressing the complaint by him, the prosecution should be put to an end. But trial court is carrying out proceedings for ensuring attendance of applicant-accused. 5. This matter neither involves any offence of heinous nature having any societal impact, and dispute has come to an end under amicable settlement, which is not forbidden by law, and there is no possibility of any evidence would be forthcoming to nail the applicant; therefore it appears appropriate that exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court, such legal proceedings should be put to an end. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1800/2008 (Brijbhan Singh Vs. Kamleshwar Kumar Tripathi), under Sections 418, 420 IPC and section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur, are hereby quashed. ----------- 1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1084 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 24451 Of 2016 Ashraf Ali ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day in Case No.611/IX/2015 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2013 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Chhata. As per the FIR, on 17.10.2013 the Supply Inspector intercepted a vehicle carrying approximately 1600 litres of kerosene oil. The driver disclosed that the kerosene oil was procured from the applicant Ashraf Ali and coaccused Santosh Kumar, who are wholesale dealers. It was alleged that they were selling kerosene oil in the black market. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and others under Section 3/7 E.C. Act. Cognizance was taken on 20.04.2015. The Court observed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, no good ground is made out to interfere in the matter or to issue any direction for disposal of the bail application on the same day. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.