State v. Raghuvendra Mani Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No

3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that an FIR was lodged against the applicant, including co-accused persons, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow which was registered as Crime/FIR No.0278 of 2011 and thereafter charge-sheet was filed and the matter proceeded and after some period of time the parties sat together and they had settled their dispute vide compromise deed dated 14.06.2015. He submits because of the matter was settled between the parties and under the impression that now the issue has been settled the applicant could not appear on some dates before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court [ 2 ] proceeded by issuing proclamation under Section 82 CrPC but in the meantime the applicant appeared before the trial Court and placed the compromise deed and had been enlarged on bail on

13.08.2015 and he also approached this Court by moving an Application under Section 482 CrPC No.4003 of 2025 where- after on 03.07.2025 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant arising out of Case Crime No.0278/2011 was quashed. The order dated 03.07.2025 is extracted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of entire proceedings of criminal case arising out of charge sheet and cognizance order in trial pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow arising out of case crime no.278 of 2011 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, police station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to certain misunderstanding the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. He added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 14.06.2015 which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application. Thereafter, in compliance of order dated 12.05.2025, passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before Court below on 19.05.2025 on which date the compromise deed was verified, copy of verification order is annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2011 may be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the [ 3 ] applicants and submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid.

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 14.06.2015 and said compromise has been verified on 19.05.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings relating to Case Crime No.278 of 2011.

6. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 14.06.2015 and no grievance remains to be agitated and, as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. Accordingly, entire proceeding of criminal case arising out of charge sheet and cognizance order in trial pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow arising out of case crime no.278 of 2011 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, police station Gazipur, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

8. The application is allowed accordingly."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact the criminal proceeding was initiated under Section 174-A IPC and that too under misconception that the applicant is avoiding to appear before the trial Court and this was not like that as the matter was already settled and, therefore, there was no question to avoid the criminal proceeding. He added that now the summons have been issued under Section 174-A IPC which is [ 4 ] registered as Case Crime No.0539/2015. He has submitted that his argument is of two folds; firstly that since the proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 0278/2011 has already been quashed, the proceeding under Section 174-A IPC would be a futile exercise and that will not lead to punishment and, secondly that the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to issue summons under Section 174-A IPC as the same is barred by the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC as only complaint case could have run.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17560 of 2023 (Sumit and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has referred paragraph-24, which reads as under: "24. Therefore, if the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. on the basis of police report, then lodging the F.I.R. u/s 174- A I.P.C. is futile, and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceedings u/s 174-A I.P.C. can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.c. against the accused and F.I.R. is barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C."

6. Concluding his argument, he submits that since the criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.0278/2011 has already been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and further the case arising out of Case Crime No.0539/2015 could not run as a police case, the whole proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed. [ 5 ]

7. On the other hand learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention but he could not dispute the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law.

8. Prima facie, this Court finds that the criminal proceeding has already been quashed vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 4003 of 2025 and it also seems that the issuance of summons was against the legal proposition settled in the case of Sumit and another (supra).

9. Thus, the matter requires consideration.

10. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 on taking appropriate steps within one week returnable at an early date.

11. List/put up this matter in the 4th week of September,

12. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

13. Till further orders, the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.20825/2016 (State Vs. Raghuvendra Mani Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.0539/2015 lodged at Police Station Gazipur, Lucknow, under Section 174-A IPC, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, shall remain stayed. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 11.8.2025MVS/-

3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that an FIR was lodged against the applicant, including co-accused persons, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow which was registered as Crime/FIR No.0278 of 2011 and thereafter charge-sheet was filed and the matter proceeded and after some period of time the parties sat together and they had settled their dispute vide compromise deed dated 14.06.2015. He submits because of the matter was settled between the parties and under the impression that now the issue has been settled the applicant could not appear on some dates before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court [ 2 ] proceeded by issuing proclamation under Section 82 CrPC but in the meantime the applicant appeared before the trial Court and placed the compromise deed and had been enlarged on bail on

13.08.2015 and he also approached this Court by moving an Application under Section 482 CrPC No.4003 of 2025 where- after on 03.07.2025 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant arising out of Case Crime No.0278/2011 was quashed. The order dated 03.07.2025 is extracted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of entire proceedings of criminal case arising out of charge sheet and cognizance order in trial pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow arising out of case crime no.278 of 2011 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, police station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to certain misunderstanding the instant F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. He added that later on, the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes, which has been reduced in writing on 14.06.2015 which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application. Thereafter, in compliance of order dated 12.05.2025, passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before Court below on 19.05.2025 on which date the compromise deed was verified, copy of verification order is annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. He submits that now there is no dispute in between the parties and they have settled their dispute. He submits that further criminal proceedings in the instant matter would amount to harassment and, thus, the instant criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2011 may be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the [ 3 ] applicants and submits that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party no.2 has no grievance, hence, criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid.

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 14.06.2015 and said compromise has been verified on 19.05.2025 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned criminal proceedings relating to Case Crime No.278 of 2011.

6. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 14.06.2015 and no grievance remains to be agitated and, as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. Accordingly, entire proceeding of criminal case arising out of charge sheet and cognizance order in trial pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow arising out of case crime no.278 of 2011 under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, police station Gazipur, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

8. The application is allowed accordingly."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in fact the criminal proceeding was initiated under Section 174-A IPC and that too under misconception that the applicant is avoiding to appear before the trial Court and this was not like that as the matter was already settled and, therefore, there was no question to avoid the criminal proceeding. He added that now the summons have been issued under Section 174-A IPC which is [ 4 ] registered as Case Crime No.0539/2015. He has submitted that his argument is of two folds; firstly that since the proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 0278/2011 has already been quashed, the proceeding under Section 174-A IPC would be a futile exercise and that will not lead to punishment and, secondly that the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to issue summons under Section 174-A IPC as the same is barred by the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC as only complaint case could have run.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17560 of 2023 (Sumit and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has referred paragraph-24, which reads as under: "24. Therefore, if the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. on the basis of police report, then lodging the F.I.R. u/s 174- A I.P.C. is futile, and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceedings u/s 174-A I.P.C. can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.c. against the accused and F.I.R. is barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C."

6. Concluding his argument, he submits that since the criminal proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.0278/2011 has already been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and further the case arising out of Case Crime No.0539/2015 could not run as a police case, the whole proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed. [ 5 ]

7. On the other hand learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention but he could not dispute the aforesaid settled legal proposition of law.

8. Prima facie, this Court finds that the criminal proceeding has already been quashed vide order dated 03.07.2025 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 4003 of 2025 and it also seems that the issuance of summons was against the legal proposition settled in the case of Sumit and another (supra).

9. Thus, the matter requires consideration.

10. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 on taking appropriate steps within one week returnable at an early date.

11. List/put up this matter in the 4th week of September,

12. In the meantime, the opposite parties may file counter affidavit.

13. Till further orders, the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.20825/2016 (State Vs. Raghuvendra Mani Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.0539/2015 lodged at Police Station Gazipur, Lucknow, under Section 174-A IPC, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, shall remain stayed. [Shree Prakash Singh,J.] Order Date :- 11.8.2025MVS/-