# Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12489 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nirogi-venkata-sesha-pavan-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-party-52056
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B &
436 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
entire criminal proceedings initiated u/s 406,
420, 506, 120-B & 436 IPC and for quashing the
charge sheet and order of taking cognizance and
summoning the applicants - FIR - investigation
- police filed charge sheet - 1 against coaccused - which was challenged in another
application u/s 482 - later, police on the basis of
5 All. Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2223
same material filed charge sheet -2 against the
applicant, at a much belated stage - court finds
that, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in another
Application u/s 482 has already quashed the
entire proceedings in respect of other coaccused - hence, in view of law laid down by the
hon'ble Apex court, the entire proceedings
against the present applicant are hereby
quashed so far as it relates to the instant
applicant - accordingly, present application is
allowed. (Para - 6, 22)

Application u/s 482 Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. In view of the above, this Court
finds and observes that the conduct of the
judicial officers concerned in passing
orders on printed proforma by filling up the
blanks without application of judicial mind
is objectionable and deserves to be
deprecated. The summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter and the
order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were primafacie being made out against the applicants
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

35. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 20.11.2015/03.01.2017 passed in
Case No.568/2015 relating to N.C.R.
No.236/2015 under Section 193/195 I.P.C.
pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, DistrictGonda are cryptic and do not stand the test
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
Consequently,
the
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
20.11.2015/03.01.2017 cannot be legally
sustained, as the Magistrate concerned
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in
him resulting in miscarriage of justice.

36.

Accordingly,
the
present
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds and
is
allowed.
The
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
20.11.2015/03.01.2017 passed in Case
No.568/2015
relating
to
N.C.R.
No.236/2015 under Section 193/195 I.P.C.
pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, DistrictGonda are hereby quashed.

37. The matter is remitted back to
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist,
District-Gonda directing him to decide
afresh the issue for taking cognizance and
summoning the applicants and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law
keeping in view the observations made by
this Court as well as the direction contained
in the judgments referred to above within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12489 of 2023

Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Nadeem Murtaza, Aditya Vikram Singh,
Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B &
436 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
entire criminal proceedings initiated u/s 406,
420, 506, 120-B & 436 IPC and for quashing the
charge sheet and order of taking cognizance and
summoning the applicants - FIR - investigation
- police filed charge sheet - 1 against coaccused - which was challenged in another
application u/s 482 - later, police on the basis of
5 All. Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2223
same material filed charge sheet -2 against the
applicant, at a much belated stage - court finds
that, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in another
Application u/s 482 has already quashed the
entire proceedings in respect of other coaccused - hence, in view of law laid down by the
hon'ble Apex court, the entire proceedings
against the present applicant are hereby
quashed so far as it relates to the instant
applicant - accordingly, present application is
allowed. (Para - 6, 22)

Application u/s 482 Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Gian Ssingh Vs St. of Punj. 2012 (10) SCC
303.

3. Dimpey Gujral & ors. Vs Union Territory
Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

4. Narendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. &
ors.2014 (6) SCC 466.

5. Yogendra Yadav & ors .Vs St. of Jharkhand
2014 (9) SCC 653,

6. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Gujarat & anr,; reported
in (2017) 9 SCC 641,

7. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 S.C. 866,

8. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426,

9. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192,

10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283,

11. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Shri Purnendu Chakravarty,
Advocate has filed Vakalatnama alongwith
short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite
party No.2, which is taken on record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today
in the Court by Shri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned Counsel for the applicant is also
taken on record.

3. Heard Shri Nadeem Murtaza,
learned counsel for applicant, Shri Anuuj
Tondon, Advocate holding brief of Shri
Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2, Shri Ashok Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party No.1 and perused the record.

4. The applicant, namely-Nirogi
Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar, son of Shri
Nirogi Venkata Rama Krishna Rao and the
opposite party No.2, namely-Hardik Kotak,
son of Shri Indubhai Kantilal Kotak are
present before this Court, who have been
identified by their respective counsel.

5. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed with the prayer to quash the
entire
proceedings
of
the
Case
No.122651/2022; State vs. Petr Novotny
and Ors, arising out of Case Crime
No.492/2020, pending before the learned
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
(Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 406,
420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. with a
further prayer has been made to quash the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
20.10.2023 passed by learned Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow
whereby the applicant has been summoned
under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and
436 I.P.C. alongwith the impugned charge
sheet bearing No.2 dated 31.03.2023 filed
under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and
436 I.P.C. in relation to Case Crime
No.492/2020,
Police
Station-Banthara,
District-Lucknow.
2224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant
submits that the police after conducting the
investigation prepared and submitted a
charge sheet dated 10.12.2022 in the instant
case and the other co-accused persons
under Section 406, 420, 506, 120-B and
436 I.P.C. and subsequently the cognizance
of the matter was taken by learned
Magistrate in Criminal Case No.122651 of
2022 (State v. Petr Novotny and Ors.),
whereas, the investigation was kept
pending in respect of the present applicant.
He further submits that susbequently the
police on the basis of same material as was
collected during the time of submission of
charge sheet No.1 dated 10.12.2022,
proceeded to file the impugned charge
sheet bearing No.02 dated 31.03.2023
under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and
436 I.P.C. against the present applicant at a
much belated stage.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that the co-accused persons
being aggrieved by the summoning order
dated 17.12.2022 passed by learned
Magistrate preferred an Application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 wherein, this
Court vide order dated 28.01.2023 stayed
the further proceedings of learned trial
court. He further submits that subsequently,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court was
pleased to quash the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State
vs. Petr Novotny and Ors.) vide order dated
06.12.2023. Copy of the interim order dated
28.01.2023
and
final
order
dated
06.12.2023 passed by this Court are
annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the
supplementary affidavit.

8. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that the instant dispute
essentially exists between Scania India the
ex-employer of the present applicant and the
opposite party No.2 and the instant case at
best involves a civil liability. He further
submits that the opposite party No.2 in the
present case runs a travel agency in the name
of M/s Eagle Travels & M/s Falcon Bus Lines
Private Limited.

9. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that during the pendency of
this
application
an
agreement
dated
09.02.2024 has been entered into between the
parties i.e. Scania Commercial Vehicles India
Private Limited (First Party) and Falcon Bus
Lines Private Limited (Second Party)
whereby both the parties have arrived at an
amicable
settlement
to
extend
their
cooperation and end all the dispute existing
between them. He further submits that in the
aforesaid
settlement
agreement
dated
09.02.2024 one of the terms and condition of
the agreement provides that the opposite
party No.2 shall facilitate and cooperate in
quashing of the impugned proceedings of
Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State vs.
Petr Novotny and Ors.) assailed by means of
this application. The settlement agreement
dated 09.02.2024 is annexed as Annexure
No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.

10. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that in the aforesaid
settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024, it has
been amicably agreed between the parties that
the parties shall facilitate the quashing of the
impugned proceedings. It has been further
agreed that a Demand Draft of Rs.
45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only)
drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency
will be handed over to the opposite party
No.2 upon the final order being passed by this
Court for quashing of the impugned
proceedings herein.

11. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that as per the terms and
5 All. Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2225
conditions of the aforesaid settlement
agreement dated 09.02.2024, the applicant
has
brought
a
Demand
Draft
of
Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs
Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel
Agency from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore,
Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore
bearing
No.783229
dated 08.05.2024
before this Court in original to be handed
over to the opposite party No.2, thus, he
submits that the proceedings of the present
case may be quashed on the basis of
settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 as
both the parties are ready to settle their
dispute.

12. Learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 and the opposite party No.2
himself submit that they have no objection
if the proceedings of the present case are
quashed
after
a
Demand
Draft
of
Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only)
drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency
from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore, Raheja
Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore bearing
No.783229 dated 08.05.2024 is handed over to
the opposite party No.2 before this Court in
original. They further submit that they are ready
to comply with the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 entered
into between the parties amicably.

13. Learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party No.1 also made an agreement
with the submissions made by learned Counsel
for the parties and the parties, who are present
before this Court in person and submits that he
has no objection if the impugned proceedings
are quashed as the parties have amicably settled
their dispute by means of settlement agreement
dated 09.02.2024.

14. After considering the submissions
made by learned Counsel for the parties and
the parties, who are present before this
Court in person and after going through the
record, this Court is also satisfied with the
submissions made by learned Counsel for
the
parties.
The
Demand Draft
of
Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs
Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel
Agency from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore,
Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore
bearing No.783229 dated 08.05.2024 is
handed over to the opposite party No.2 in
original by the applicant. The opposite
party No.2 has received the same before
this Court and signed the photostat copy of
the same, which is taken on record.

15.

Further,
the
amount
of
Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs
Only) has been paid to the opposite party
No.2 as per the settlement agreement dated
09.02.2024 now no dispute remains to be
adjudicated between the parties. Further, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 06.12.2023 passed in Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 already
quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case
No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny
and Ors) in respect of the other co-accused
persons.

16. Thus, after considering the same,
this Court also finds that no useful purpose
would be served in keeping the matter
pending between the parties as the parties
have amicably settled their dispute by
means of settlement agreement dated
09.02.2024, which is on record.

17. Learned counsel for the parties
have drawn the attention of this Court and
placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their
case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.
2226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of
Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others
Vs.
Union
Territory
Through
Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv)
Narendra
Singh
And
Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others
2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v)
Yogendra
Yadav
And
Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9)
SCC 653.

18. Summarizing the ratio of all the
above cases the latest judgment pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State
of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the
broad principles with regard to exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
case of compromise/settlement between the
parties which emerges from precedent of
the subjects as follows:-

i. "Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court
or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognizes and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

ii.The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether
a criminal proceeding or complaint should
be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would
justify the exercise of the inherent power;
 iv. While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court;
 v. The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute,
revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

vi. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are truly speaking not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;

vii. As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases which
have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of
the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving
offences which arises from commercial,
5 All. Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2227
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute;
 ix. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

x. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the
state have implications which lie beyond
the domain of a mere dispute between
private disputants. The High Court would
be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a
financial
or
economic
fraud
or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the
balance."

19. The Apex Court has also laid
down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings could be interfered and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

20. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position for
quashing of the proceedings at the initial
stage. The test to be applied by the court is
to whether uncontroverted allegation as
made prima facie establishes the offence
and the chances of ultimate conviction is
bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing criminal proceedings to
be continued. In S.W. Palankattkar &
others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC
168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that quashing of the criminal
proceedings is an exception than a rule. The
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give
effect an order under the Code, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of the court ;
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
The power of High Court is very wide but
should be exercised very cautiously to do
real and substantial justice for which the
court alone exists.

21. With the assistance of the
aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly is
private dispute and differences it is deem
proper and meet to the ends of justice. The
proceeding of the aforementioned case be
quashed.

22. The present 482 Cr.P.C.
application stands allowed. Keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above referred judgment
and in view of the statement/compromise
made by the applicant as well as opposite
party no.2 and the observation made above
and also taking note of the fact that a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 06.12.2023 passed in Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 already
quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case
No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny
and Ors) in respect of the other co-accused
persons, the entire proceedings of the Case
2228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.122651/2022; State vs. Petr Novotny
and Ors, arising out of Case Crime
No.492/2020, pending before the learned
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
(Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 406,
420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. are hereby
quashed so far as it relates to the instant
applicant.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2228
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ - C No. 3837 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya
Division, Ayodhya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ravi Shanker Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh,
Vishwakant Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Brijesh Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh

Civil Law -order passed by the revisional
court under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006-under challengepreliminary objection raised-alternative
remedy to file a suit under Section 144 of
the
Code-consolidation
proceedings-
name of respondent no. 4 recorded-his
mother
predeceased
her
maternal
grandmother-mutation proceedings under
Section 34 of the Code allowed in favour
of petitioner-appeal filed by respondentsU-turn by respondent no. 4-his mother
expired after the demise of his maternal
grandmother- appeal dismissed-revision
against
it
allowed-
respondent
had
claimed inheritance under Section 171 (2)
(h) of the Act,1950-objection of forged
death certificate not duly appreciated by
the revisional court-nor did the finding
returned by the appellate court has been
challenged
in
revision-
petition
maintainable as per the exceptions carved
out in Hadisul Nisha judgement-admission
is the best piece of evidence-impugned
order quashed- petition allowed. (Paras
31 to 35)

HELD:
The observation/ finding of the revisional Court
that it might have been mistake of the counsel
has no substance but it is only conjectural. The
revisional court has erred, in case the original
which are said by the revisional Court to be
before it and when the same was objected by
the petitioners who were respondents there and
moved an application for summoning the
original record and the Officer who had issued
the
same
and
particularly
under
the
circumstances that since the year 2013, the
respondent no. 4 filed affidavits before different
authorities and the courts including before the
High Court had never ever been placed the copy
of the death certificate and made averment on
oath that her mother predeceased her mother
and the detailed finding in the appellate order
treating that the photocopy of the death
certificate is not an admissible piece of evidence
then it is incumbent upon the revisional court
before deciding the case in favour of respondent
no. 4 must require the document to be proved
by the party relying upon it. (Para 31)

The writ petition is maintainable as per condition
no. (v) of the judgment in the case of Hadisul
Nisha (supra). (Para 33)

The admission of respondent no. 4 not once but
more than once before different authorities
including before this Court in the writ petition
filed by the respondent no. 4 that his mother
predeceased
her
mother
i.e.
maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4 and that his
case falls under category of (h) of Section 171
(2) of the Act, 1950 and it is best piece of
evidence in the light of Section 31 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, though it is not a conclusive
proof but they may operate as estoppel. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary [2005(5) SCC
63] has held that admission is the best piece of