SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramesh Iyer vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 41

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 36622 of 2019

Applicant :- Ramesh Iyer

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Chaudhary

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri Puneet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, has field vakalatnama on behalf of the opp. party no. 2, let it be taken on record.

Heard Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA for the State.

The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 37 of 2008 under Section 406 IPC, police station Hapur Nagar, district Hapur as well as summoning order dated 13.5.2008 and consequential bailable warrant dated 1.9.2018 passed by A.C.J.M. Hapur in the aforementioned case.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the private dispute between the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 has been compromised and the copy of the compromise has been filed as annexure-5 and the private dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and prayed that the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed and learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of SectionManoj Sharma v. State (2008)16 SCCI, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466, SectionYogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2014) and has submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties amicably, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is allowed to go on as no grievance is left to the opposite party No.2, therefore, present case may be finally decided.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the fact that compromise has been entered into between the parties and the opposite party No. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further.

In view of the fact that opposite party no.2 also does not want to prosecute the case. The matter is personal, which has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding further with the matter.

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in JT 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the present application is allowed and the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 37 of 2008, Himanshu Jain Vs. Managing Director, Ramesh Iyer, Mahindra and Mahindra, Financial Services Limited, under Sections 406 IPC, police station Hapur Nagar, district Hapur as well as summoning order dated 13.5.2008 and consequential bailable warrant dated 1.9.2018 passed by A.C.J.M. Hapur are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 19.10.2019

Gss

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation