# Sabir & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 669
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11259 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sabir-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45888
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 & Indian Penal
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code,1860- Sections 323, 504,506,406quashing of-complaint-compromise between
the
litigants
accepted-dispute/incident
occurred
35
years
ago-Though,many
offences
are
in
the
realm
of
noncompoundable offence, but for the end of
justice, exercising the power u/s 482 would
justify to defile the matter-the dispute being
in the realm of petty dispute, the doctrine of
judicial restrain cannot be brought into
action in the instant case.(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 non-compoundable offencesSection
320
Crpc
provides
for
compounding of certain offences-Apex
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 6,7)

The application is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

8 All. Sabir & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
669
criminal
proceedings
attended
with
malafies and/or where the proceedings are
maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge. It is
astpnishing as to when the grievance of the
rival parties has properly been addressed by
the court concerned and written statements of
the respective defendants have already been
submitted then no justifiable reason arises to
array the stranger named Kaptan Singh as
opposite party no. 2, the self-proclaimed
Power of Attorney Holder without any
requisite and relevant document to initiate
criminal case against the appicants by
knitting an imaginary story. In the FIR, he
alleges that on the date of incident, he along
with Ram Pratap Singh visited the disputed
site wherein Mamta Devi (applicant no. 2)
and her husband hurled filthy abuses upon
the and assaulted with the lathi and danda,
causing serious injuries over the person of
Ram Pratap but astoundingly there no
medical injury report to corroborate the
allegation, thus, this Court can safely reach to
the conclusion that the additions are simply
embellishment just switch over the episode
into a serious and grimmer drama.

35. Relying upon the aforesaid
discussions, made herein above, this
Court finds that there is no case against
the applicants under section 406 IPC and
rest of the allegations are tangent to the
main
allegation
without
any
corroborating evidence.

36. Hence in the light of a critical,
analytical and elaborated confab on the
issue, the criminal prosecution initiated
against the applicants under sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC have no
bones to stand with, therefore, quashed.
However, court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kanpur Nagar, adjudicating
the matter, is expected to speed up the
trials of Original Suit No. 1553 of 2015
(Ms Mamta Devi v. Munni Devi) and
Original Suit No. 2077 of 2015 (Mamta
Devi v. Munni Devi) and dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible,
keeping in view that pleadings have been
exchanged between the parties.

37. The entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 3302 of 2015 (State v.
Radhey Shyam Gupta and others) under
sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386
IPC, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar
pending in the court of I-Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar is, hereby, quashed and the present
application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., is allowed.

38. Certified copy of the judgement
be transmitted to the court concerned at
the earliest.
----------
(2020)08ILR A669
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06.2020

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

Application U/S 482 No. 11259 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Hans Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri R.C. Upadhyay

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 482 & Indian Penal
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code,1860- Sections 323, 504,506,406quashing of-complaint-compromise between
the
litigants
accepted-dispute/incident
occurred
35
years
ago-Though,many
offences
are
in
the
realm
of
noncompoundable offence, but for the end of
justice, exercising the power u/s 482 would
justify to defile the matter-the dispute being
in the realm of petty dispute, the doctrine of
judicial restrain cannot be brought into
action in the instant case.(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 non-compoundable offencesSection
320
Crpc
provides
for
compounding of certain offences-Apex
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 6,7)

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. Shri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2, Waheed Khan
son of late Shiv Charan has filed his
Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Complaint Case No.7339 of 2016
alleges commission of offences under
Sections 323, 504, 506 and 406 I.P.C. but
now it should not proceed further as the
parties have compromised.

3.

Looking
to
the
said
circumstances of this pandemic, it would
not be proper relegate the parties.

4. The complaint is pending since 2016
the revision was also filed. However, during
this pendency it appears that the parties
entered into a compromise on 29.6.2019. The
revisional court unfortunately rejected their
applications which order is also challenged.

5. The learned counsel for respondentcomplainant 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.

6. 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 counsel for
the petitioners on the decisions of the
Apex Court for similar matter under
8 All. Mahesh Chandra Maheshwari Vs. Bhadohi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
671
Sections 149, 147, 452 relied by my
brother (Justice Om Prakash VII) would
be applicable.

7. 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.

8. Before C.J.M., Agra the entire
proceedings of the Complaint Case
No.7339 of 2016 shall be defiled and the
parties shall not be summoned or asked
to remain present.

9. Order be communicated to the
Agra Court by e-mail as expeditiously as
possible.

10. This court is thankful to both
the counsels Shri Hans Nath Pandey and
Shri Shri R.C. Upadhyay for getting their
parties to settle the dispute during this
pandemic.
----------
(2020)08ILR A671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12606 of 2004
& Application U/S 482 No. 12605 of 2004

Mahesh Chandra Maheshwari ..Applicant
Versus
Bhadohi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
 ...Opposite Partiy
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Ajay Shanker Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
482
&
Negotiable Instrument Act,1881-Sections
138,142(b)-quashing
of-summoning
order- challenge to-maintainability ofwhether complaint barred by period of
limitation prescribed u/s 142(b) of the Act
or not-counsel for applicant relied on the
overruled judgment of Apex Court while
for the purpose of calculating the period
of one month, u/s 142(b) of the Act, the
period has to be reckoned by excluding
the date on which cause of action arosethus, it cannot be said that the complaint
is ex-facie barred by time.(Para 3 to 21)
(E-6)
List of Cases Cited:-

1. M/s Sil Import USA Vs M/s Exim Aides Silk
Exporters, Banglore (1999) 4 SCC 567

2. K. Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
& ors. (1999) 7 SCC 510

3. ECON Antri Ltd. Vs Rom Industries Ltd. &
ors. (2014) 11 SCC 769

4. Saketh India Ltd. & ors. Vs India Securities
Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel for applicant and learned
AGA for State of U.P. None appeared on
behalf of complainant despite the case having
been called in revise. Since it is an old matter,
hence, I proceed to decide this application
after hearing aforesaid counsels.

2. Application No. 12606 of 2004
has been filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter