# Mahendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11269 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45779
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860- Section 147,149,452,
323,
504,
506-quashing
of-complaintcompromise between the litigants accepteddispute/incident
occurred
35
years
ago-
6 All. Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
Though,many offences are in the realm of
noncompoundableoffence,butfortheendofjustice,
es/s 482 would justify to defile the matter.(5 to
10)

B. Apex Court laid down guidelines for the
exercise of inherent power u/s 482 while
quashing criminal proceedings in case of noncompoundable
offences-Section
320
Crpc
provides for compounding of certain offencesApex court held that high court must refrain
from quashing criminal proceedings if the
offence is a serious and heinous or when public
interest is involved.where the wrong is personal
in nature and the parties have resolved their
dispute, the proceeding may be quashed. If
possibility
of
conviction
is
remote
and
continuation of criminal cases would cause
extreme injustice to the accused, high courts
may quash the criminal proceedings. (Para 8,9)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1.Navindra Singh & ors. Vs St. Of Punj. (2014) 6
SCC 466

## Text

180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations before finding a prima facie
case to set the trial on foot. Criminal trial
cannot be set in motion in a cursory manner
by the trial court.

65. In the instant case, the learned
trial court neglected to make a searching
enquiry into the veracity of the allegations
and credibility of witnesses. The approach
of the learned trial court was superficial
and cursory to say the least. This factor
vitiates the impugned orders passed by the
learned trial court.

66. The cumulative effect of the
preceding discussion is a prima facie
offence was not made out against the
applicants for the trial to proceed.

67. In the wake of the preceding
discussion this Court finds that the criminal
proceedings
instituted
against
the
applicants are not only unlawful but an
abuse of the process of court and are liable
to be quashed.

68. The proceedings along with
complaint of Criminal Case No. 1635
(7635) of 2004, Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs.
Ashish Pandey and Others (initiated on the
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
dated 20.12.2002 which has been treated by
order
dated
24.03.2004
as
Criminal
Complaint), pending in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 1, Varanasi under Sections 392, 504,
506 IPC, Police Station Jaitpura, District
Varanasi as well as the order dated
13.07.2005 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi,
are quashed.

69. Concealment of material facts
while
instituting
and
processing
the
criminal proceedings has been established.
The complaint is an abuse of the process of
court. The respondent no. 3 cannot escape
the consequences of coming to the court
with unclean hands.

70. In these facts the ends of justice
will be secured by imposition of costs upon
the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3
shall pay Rs. 25,000/- to each of three
applicants and Rs. 25,000/- to the State
Legal Services Authority. The entire
payment shall be deposited within eight
weeks before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi. In case of default the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, shall ensure
recovery of the amount as arrears of land
revenue.

71. The application is allowed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11269 of 2020

Mahendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shiv Bahadur Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri R.P. Yadav

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860- Section 147,149,452,
323,
504,
506-quashing
of-complaintcompromise between the litigants accepteddispute/incident
occurred
35
years
ago-
6 All. Mahendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
Though,many offences are in the realm of
noncompoundableoffence,butfortheendofjustice,
es/s 482 would justify to defile the matter.(5 to
10)

B. Apex Court laid down guidelines for the
exercise of inherent power u/s 482 while
quashing criminal proceedings in case of noncompoundable
offences-Section
320
Crpc
provides for compounding of certain offencesApex court held that high court must refrain
from quashing criminal proceedings if the
offence is a serious and heinous or when public
interest is involved.where the wrong is personal
in nature and the parties have resolved their
dispute, the proceeding may be quashed. If
possibility
of
conviction
is
remote
and
continuation of criminal cases would cause
extreme injustice to the accused, high courts
may quash the criminal proceedings. (Para 8,9)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1.Navindra Singh & ors. Vs St. Of Punj. (2014) 6
SCC 466

2. Saifula Vs St. Of U.P. (2013) SCC Online Ald
5681

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. The matter has been placed at the
behest of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. Shri R.P. Yadav has filed his
Vakalatnama for the original complainant
Lakhan Singh son of Sri Shankar.

3. The parties are litigating since
1989, the accused eight in numbers belong
to a group of persons of the same village.

4. Mahendra Singh Accused No.1,
now 65 years old and has been authorized
to
litigate
for
all.
It
appears
that
compromise came to be entered into on
7.2.2020, the complaint came to be filed
exactly 35 years back in 1985. The
dispute/incident occurred on 4.9.1984, it
was not that major issue between the family
members.

5. The learned Magistrate on 3.2.1988
took
cognizance
and
summoned
the
accused for facing trial under Sections 147,
149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code. The Trial Court has not proceeded
further for 35 years, no witnesses were
examined
on
7th
February,
2020
compromise before a notary has been
entered into which has been filed as
Annexure-3 to the petition.

6.

The
learned
counsel
for
respondent-complainant has also accepted
there is a compromise between the parties.
The fact that many of the offences are in
the realm of non compoundable offence,
but the question is what would be end
result of the litigation which is pending
since 1985. If this Court does not accept the
compromise and relegates the parties to
undergo the process of going before the
trial court, what would be the end result? It
would be that the evidences would be led
and at the end of the trial for want of
evidence, the accused would be acquitted.
It would be resulting into what I would call
default acquittal when we are faced with
both the pendamic and pendency as there is
no element of morality or public damage at
large. The Dispute being in the realm of
petty dispute, the doctrine of judicial
restrain cannot be brought into action here
in this case.

7. The recent judgments of the Apex
Court and this High Court will permit this
Court to quash the proceedings defile the
same and direct the court below to defile
the proceedings. The reliance placed by the
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the petitioners on the decisions
of the Apex Court for similar matter under
Sections 149, 147, 452 relied by my brother
(Justice Om Prakash VII) would be
applicable.

8. The guidelines laid down in 2014 6
SCC 466, Navindra Singh and others
versus State of Punjab would apply to the
facts of this case. The material on record
would go to show that end of the justice
would justify exercising the power under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. I
am also supported in my view by 2013
SCC OnLine Ald 5681, Saifula versus
State of U.P.

9. The petition is accepted. The
proceedings of Complaint Case No.481 of
1989 (Lakhan Singh Versus Basudev and
others), under Sections 323, 147, 149, 452,
504, 506 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Jhansi are quashed and set
aside.

10. The learned Judge to defile the
matter without insisting the presence of
parties.

11. Order be communicated through
the District Judge, Jhansi to concerned
Court by e-mail as expeditiously as
possible.
----------
(2020)06ILR A182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482 CR.P.C.) No.
12176 of 2013
&
Application U/S 482 No. 41464 of 2013

Sunil Pathak & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anurag Shukla, B0123, Sri Bharat
Bushan Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sri
Mangala Prasad Pandey, Sri Pankaj Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1862- Section 395-quashing ofsummoning order-trial court failed to assess the
materials on record-criminal antecedents of any
accused do carry weight but on this ground
alone, the applicants cannot be summoneddifference of averments made in complaint and
statements of complainant put a serious
question mark to the authenticity of the casemoreover, injury report is a procured documentthe court is required to atleast mention in the
order about the prima facie satisfaction for
summoning the accused-the accused cannot be
summoned mechanically merely by writing that
perused the statements u/s 200 and 202 CrPC-
Since it is a cross-case, the impugned order
quashed in a one complaint while proceeding in
other case shall proceed unabated.(Para 17 to
23 & 1 to 5)

Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into
motion as a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two witnesses to
support his allegations to have the criminal law
set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he
has applied his mind to the facts and the law
applicable thereto.(Para 17)

The application is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Vijay Dhanuka etc. Vs Naijma Mamtaz (2014)
14
SCC
638