Ankit Jain And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7318 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6319 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Ankit Jain And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Jaiswal
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Counsel for the accused and the Advocate for the complainant are present.

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned charge sheet No.246/2017 dated 17.07.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case Crime No.606 of 2017, under Sections 392/411/419/420/342/384 IPC, Police Station NOIDA Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar, against the petitioners on the basis of compromise pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

All 3 accused entered into certain business transaction with opponent no.2 but due to fall out of same, a case crime was registered against them which culminated into the chargesheet being laid and compromise was entered into after a long period of time as the parties felt that it was business transaction as in paragraph no.5 of the petition, the ingredients of F.I.R. are mentioned. The settlement took place on 3.2.2023. Unfortunately, the learned trial Judge did not record discharge may be because some of the offences were non-compoundable and that is why the parties have moved this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. as well as Charge sheet.

The chargesheet was laid numbered as 246 of 2017 which culminated into litigation under Sections 392/411/419/420/342/384 IPC. Sections 411/419/342 are of compoundable offence compelling to be under Section 320 IPC. However, Section 392 and 384 are non-compoundable offence and, therefore, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied on the F.I.R. and settlement between the parties. As the accused had taken away such as Computer, Section 392 was invoked by the original informant and Section 420 was invoked for business transaction as the complaint felt there was telephonic intimidation by the accused.

It appears that after a period of 6 years of litigation between the parties they want to bury their dispute, Annexure-5 at page 35 to this petition. This Court permits the compounding of offence and this order be placed on the record before the trial court which would consign the matter to file in view of the settle the legal position.

This Court is even fortified on its own view by the judgment of the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 (9) SCC 641.

The learned trial Judge will defile the proceedings which have arisen out of case crime number as mentioned herein above.

This Court records the presence of Sri J.B. Singh appearing for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal for the original informant-complainant.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 14.3.2023

Irshad