SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 11 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15872 of 2011

1. Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu S/o Late Krishna Bhuhsan Gupta

2. Kanak Barnwal W/o Late Krishna Bhushan Gupta

3. Santoshi Barnwal S/o Late Krishna Bhushan Gupta
All are R/o Moh: Shyampuri Colony, House No. S-26/715, Mirpur Bashi,
P.S.- Shivpur, District- Varanasi.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1.The State Of Bihar.

2. Nisha Barnwal @ Moni Barnwal W/o Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu, R/o
Shyampuri Colony, House No. S-26/715 Mirapur Bashi, P.S.- Shivpur,
District- Varanasi, at present R/o Arvind Prasad, Ward No. 5, Rosera,
Mohalla- Prabhu Thakur P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Altamish with
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2. Despite learned counsel entering appearance on

behalf of the opposite party no. 2, nobody was present when the

case was taken up and heard.

3. Yesterday the Court had recorded the following order:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned A.P.P. for the State have assisted the
Court. Despite learned counsel entering
appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2,
nobody was present when the case was taken up
and heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
heavily relied upon a compromise entered into
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15872 of 2011 dt.11-01-2019
2/3

between the parties in Trial No. 3534 of 2006,
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at
Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
24.05.2010, in which in lieu of payment of Rs.
1,51,000/-, the parties had agreed to settle all
cases, including the present one. The petitioner
no. 1 had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- upfront to the
opposite party no. 2 then only, but the rest Rs.
51,000/- was subject to the compromise being
filed before the Court below in the present case.

3. On a query of the Court to learned
counsel for the petitioners as to whether the
remaining Rs. 51,000/- has been paid, learned
counsel expressed his ignorance. The Court does
not appreciate the conduct of the petitioners. If
they have filed a case, it is their duty to inform
learned counsel as it is within their knowledge
whether the remaining Rs. 51,000/- has been
paid to the opposite party no. 2 or not. This
itself may be a ground for the Court not to
interfere.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioners prayed for one last indulgence and
submitted that the matter be passed over for the
day to enable him to get instructions.

5. In view thereof, as prayed for by
learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is
adjourned for the day.”

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that he has taken instructions, according to which, the remaining

amount of Rs. 51,000/- was also paid to the opposite party no. 2,

after acquittal in Trial No. 3534 of 2006 by the court below at

Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 03.06.2010. It was further

submitted that perusal of the lower court records in the present

case indicates that since then the opposite party no. 2 has also

stopped appearing in the present case before the court below which
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15872 of 2011 dt.11-01-2019
3/3

indicates that she has received the remaining amount of Rs.

51,000/- also.

5. In view of the aforesaid and after going through the

compromise petition filed by the parties in the court at Varanasi in

which at paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that after filing of

compromise petition in the court below the remaining amount of

Rs. 51,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2, meaning

thereby that the present case was also part of the compromise, the

Court finds that the matter now requires to be finally closed.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Complaint

Case No. 559 of 2006 as well as the order dated 25.09.2006 by

which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under

Sections 498A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code stands

quashed.

7. The lower court records be returned to the court

below forthwith.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh