High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112769 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13512 of 2020 Applicant :- Ganesh Prasad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Upadhyay,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Shanker Pathak Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 31.05.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 13.02.2020 and entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 105 of 2020 (State versus Ramashankar and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2018 registered under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Robertsganj, District-Sonebhadra, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Sonebhadra.. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application was filed seeking quashing of aforementioned proceedings. However, the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 03.02.2021 passed the following order:- "This application has been filed challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No.105 of 2020, State Vs. Ramashankar and Others (arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 2018), under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sonebhadra. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the prosecution has been brought mala fide in consequence of the applicants lodging an FIR against the Directors of the Company known as Sky Lark Land Developers and Infrastructure India Ltd. on 10.05.2018, giving rise to Case Crime No.260 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420 IPC. That FIR was lodged by applicant No.1, Ganesh Prasad. The allegation is that the Company used Ganesh Prasad to do their public relations work for ensuring subscription to the company's stock/fund by the members of the public against payment of brokerage/commission and that the money collected from the public was never refunded, or the commission of the first applicant paid. � It is argued that the present FIR nominating the first applicant and the other applicants as accused has been lodged at the instance of the Company as an abuse of process by the informant in order to browbeat the first applicant into withdrawing from prosecution of the case instituted on his FIR. It is also argued that the present FIR has been lodged against the Company by the informant showing himself to be a depositor, who has been cheated of his money with the Company winding up its business in Sonebhadra and going traceless. It is argued that in the impugned charge-sheet, the Directors of the Company have been exculpated, whereas the applicants, who worked for the Company to do their public relation work, have been implicated. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that Dileep Jain, Jai Hind Kumar, Durga Prasad Yadav and Rama Shankar, who are, in fact, Directors of the Company, nominated in the FIR have been exculpated during investigation. The fact that these persons are Directors, is ex facie established from the proceedings before the Security Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai, where these four men are shown as Directors on the records of Appeal No.131 of 2016 in the proceedings dated 15.01.2018. A copy of that record is placed at page No.94 of the paper-book. Let the learned AGA seek instructions within ten days as to whether the applicants are Directors, Officers or servants of the Company known as Sky Lark Land Developers and Infrastructure India Ltd. Learned AGA will also seek instructions indicating whether any Director or Officer of the Company has been charge-sheeted in the present case, and if not, why? Lay this matter as fresh again on 15.02.2021. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. During pendency of the present application, both the parties have settled their dispute out of Court and moved an application that proceedings be quashed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 directed the parties to appear before the court below and file the compromise, thereafter the concerned court shall verify the compromise deed and transmit the same to this Court through Registrar General. 5. Pursuant to the said order dated 06.05.2024, the parties appeared before the court below and in their presence, after due verification of the contents of the compromise made between the parties, order has been passed by the court verifying the said compromise. A copy of the same is annexed as 'Flag-A' to the application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV SWETA YADAV SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad