Allahabad High Court
Chhatrapal Gangwar Alias Chatra Pal ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154627
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15793 of 2024
Chhatrapal Gangwar Alias Chatra Pal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anish Kumar Sinha, P.H. Vashishtha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.H. Vashistha along with Mr. Anish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and cognizance/ summoning order dated 07.02.2017 in Case No. 681 of 2008 (State Vs. Chatrapal Gangwar alias Chatra Pal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 658 of 2007, under Sections 407, 471, 487 IPC, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, District Bareilly. It is also prayed to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case during pendency of the present application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 482 Application No. 18198 of 2015 (Chhatrapal Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. & Another) both the parties have appeared before the court concerned and filed a compromise, same has been verified vide its order dated 07.02.2017. However, court concerned has clearly stated in its order that the case does not fall within the purview of Section 320 I.P.C., therefore matter could not be compromised or proceedings of aforesaid case quashed. It is further contended that first informant is the opposite party no. 2, who is passed away on 05.07.2018. It is also submitted that vide order dated 01.08.2024, this Court has directed to learned A.G.A. to verify the contents of paragraph no. 16 & 17 of the affidavit and filed an affidavit of a responsible officer to the said victim. Learned A.G.A. filed the affidavit, which does not dispute the fact that opposite party no. 2 has already been passed away. As per compromise verification order, passed by the court concerned, the proceedings against the applicant could not be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection since the dispute between the parties has been settled, he has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
6. Since the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise and same has been verified by court concerned but proceedings could not be quashed against the applicant as the case does not fall within the purview of section 320 I.P.C. In the meantime, opposite party no. 2 passed away and this fact is not disputed by learned A.G.A. The compromise is at page no. 47 and compromise verification order of concerned court is at page no. 20 of the memo of application. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, taking note all the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the proceedings against the applicant is hereby quashed.
7. In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8. The entire proceeding of Case No. 681 of 2008 (State Vs. Chatrapal Gangwar alias Chatra Pal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 658 of 2007, under Sections 407, 471, 487 IPC, P.S. Shahi, District Bareilly, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor against the applicant is quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) September 2, 2025 Vibha Singh