# Ram Prasad and others v. 1.State of U.P. 2.Jeetan

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 816
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-and-others-v-1-state-of-u-p-2-jeetan-41231
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482Quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.-
dispute personal nature-on reference of
High
Court-mediation
center
settled
their
differences
on
the
basis
of
compromise-in continuing proceedingNo useful purpose shall be-held-to do
complete
justice-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 by way of compromise.
Therefore, to do the complete justice,
the proceedings of Complaint Case No.
1547 of 2007 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

816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1813 of
2008

Ram Prasad and others
...Applicants
Versus
1.State of U.P.
2.Jeetan

 ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri M.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482Quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.-
dispute personal nature-on reference of
High
Court-mediation
center
settled
their
differences
on
the
basis
of
compromise-in continuing proceedingNo useful purpose shall be-held-to do
complete
justice-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 by way of compromise.
Therefore, to do the complete justice,
the proceedings of Complaint Case No.
1547 of 2007 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 this application under
section 482 of the code of Criminal
Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), the
applicants Ram Prasad, Shri Dev, Jai
Dev and Atma Darshi have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court,
praying for quashing of the proceedings
of Case No. 1547 of 2007 (State vs.
Ram Prasad & others), pending in the
court of Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details,
the facts leading to the filing of the
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.,
in brief, are that opposite party No. 2
Jeetan had moved an application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate-II Gorakhpur. On
the basis of the order passed on that
application, an FIR was lodged on
13.06.2007 at P.S. Jhagaha, where a
case under sections 323, 504, 506, 394
IPC and 3 (i) (X) SC/ST Act was
registered at Crime No. 376 of 2007 (C)
against the applicants Ram Prasad, Shri
Dev, Jai Dev and Atma Darshi. After
investigation charge-sheet under section
323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (i) (X) SC/ST
Act has been submitted against the
applicants, on the basis of which
Criminal Case No. 1547 of 2007 has
been registered. Now the applicantsaccused have come to this court for
quashing the proceedings of aforesaid
case.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
3 All] Ram Prasad and others V. State of U.P. and another
817
4. It was submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that the
dispute is of personal nature, which has
been settled by the parties due to
intervention of Allahabad High Court
Mediation
Centre
and
hence
the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1547
of 2007 should be quashed by this Court
in its inherent jurisdiction under section
482 Cr.P.C. For this submission, the
counsel for the applicants has 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 matter was referred for
reconciliation to Allahabad High Court
Mediation Centre. The parties settled
their dispute on 06.04.2008. Settlement
agreement is on record, which shows
that the dispute with regard to Crl. Misc.
Application No. 1813 of 2008 (instant
case) has been amicably settled by the
parties
through
the
process
of
conciliation/mediation.
Since
the
dispute of personal nature has been
settled by the complainant and the
applicants
due
to
intervention
of
Allahabad
High
Court
Mediation
Centre, hence no useful purpose would
be served by continuing the proceedings
of Crl. Case No. 1542 of 2007.
Therefore,
having
regard
to
the
observations made in cases of B.S.
Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Ausaf
Ahmad Abbasi vs. State of U.P. (supra),
the proceedings of the criminal 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 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 this Court due to the
compromise entered into between the
parties outside the court.

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
by
way
of
compromise.
Therefore, to do the complete justice,
the proceedings of Complaint Case No.
1547 of 2007 may be quashed by this
Court in its inherent jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Consequently, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed
and proceeding of Crl. Case No. 1547 of
2007 (State vs. Ram Prasad & others),
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3
(i) (X) SC/ST Act, pending in the court
of Judicial Magistrate-II Gorakhpur is
hereby quashed.

The office is directed to send a
copy of this order to the lower court
concerned for necessary action.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2008

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

Special Appeal No. 979 of 2008

Tungeshwar Nath

...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & another...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Saroj Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 14 and 16Appointment on Class 4th post-in the
office
of
Advocate
General-without
advertisement at least two news paper
having
wide
circulation-selection
on
basis of vacancy notified on Notice
Board-goes in favour of close to the
official and exclusion of meritorious
candidates-cancellation
of
entire
selection-held-proper.

Held: Para 15

In our considered opinion it would be a
sad day for a democratic country like
India, which is to be governed by rule
of law, if appointments on various
posts in the office of the Advocate
General,
who
is
a
Constitutional
functionary (reference Article 165 of
the
Constitution
of
India),
are
permitted to be made through a notice
published on the notice board only,
whereby Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
are
given
a
go
by.
Advocate General has to advise the
State on legal matters and to perform
such other duties of a legal character,
as may from time to time be referred or
assigned to him by the Governor, and
to discharge the functions conferred on
him by or under this Constitution or
any other law for the time being in
force. Reference Article 165 (2). The
responsibility upon the holder of such
an office, to ensure that constitutional
rights conferred by Article 14 and 16
are not infringed qua appointments
under his authority, is therefore more
stringent.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 1165, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. This is an appeal against the
judgment and order dated 29th July,
2008 passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant. The writ petition was directed
against the order dated 02nd July, 2008
passed by the Advocate General, by
which the selections on Class-IV posts
made in the year, 2005 have been
cancelled. Facts in brief for deciding
this special appeal are as follows:

2. In the year 2005 appointment on
vacant class IV posts in the office of
Advocate General at U.P. and in the
office of Government Advocate at
Allahabad were made in the year 2005.
Writ Petition No. 1200 of 2006; Vivek
Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
was filed before this Court questioning
the said selections. In the writ petition a
statement was made by the learned
Advocate General that in view of the
discrepancies noticed in selections, a