Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=129087
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 03:31:55
Document Index: 779806234

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 8395', 'Application No. 5393', 'Application No. 5394', 'application no. 8395', 'application no. 5393', 'Application No. 8395']

VIKRAM BAHAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.
Vikram Bahal And Others v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 5393 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9850 (22 May 2007)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8395 of 2005
Vikram Bahal.. ............ Applicant
..... vs. .....
State of U.P.	.......... Opposite party.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 5393 of 2007
Vikram Bahal & another.. Applicants
State of U.P. ... ......	Opposite party.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 5394 of 2007
Vijay Bahal & two others.. Applicants
The facts necessary for the disposal of all the above applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. are that Vikram Bahal, Vinod Bahal and Vijay Bahal all sons of Late Kailash Nath Bahal lived in the same premises with their mother. Smt. Madhu Bahal is the wife of Vikram Bahal where as Smt. Geeta Bahal is the wife of Vijay Bahal. On 24.2.2005, the entire family had collected in the house of mother in respect of a business matter. Some altercation took place amongst them and injury was also caused, hence Geeta Bahal lodged an FIR, which was registered as case crime no. 104/2005 under section 307 I.P.C. and Madhu Bahal lodged cross FIR being case crime no. 104-A of 2005 under sections 307,323,34 IPC. Both the cases were registered at police station Kavi Nagar district Ghaziabad and after the investigation, the cases were registered as Criminal Case No. 4284/2005 and Criminal Case No. 4356/2005.
Initially Vikram Bahal filed a criminal misc. application no. 8395/2005 before this Court seeking certain directions for the courts below but during pendency of the aforesaid application, all the family members have amicably settled the disputes between them and filed a compromise stating that they have withdrawn all the disputes, therefore, they do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. The said compromise was sent to the concerned court for verification and in the mean time the proceedings pending before the lower court were stayed. The compromise deed of the parties was verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and both the parties filed separate applications. The application no. 5393/2007 has been filed by Vikram Bahal for quashing of the criminal proceedings against Vinod Bahal, Vijay Bahal and Smt. Geeta Bahal, whereas Vijay Bahal and others filed another criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C., which was numbered as 5394/2007, for quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings against Vikram Bahal.
Both the above criminal misc. applications were connected along with pending Crl. Misc. Application No. 8395/2005 hence on the strength of compromise these three applications are being disposed of by a common order.
In the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana 2003 (46) ACC 779, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code."
Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in the case of Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhahjirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in 1988 (25) Allahabad Criminal Cases, page 163, has held as under:
"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chance of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
Thus, in view of the above, there would be no use to prolong a criminal prosecution which will result in acquittal. When the complainant is not contesting the case the chance of ultimate conviction is almost nil. The procedural delay in conclusion of the trial would simply linger the matter and may create a bad blood at any stage.
Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Application nos. 8395/2005, 5393/2007 and 5394/2007 are hereby allowed and criminal case no. 4284/2005 under section 307/323/34 IPC police station Kavi Nagar district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad and session trial no. 10 of 2006 originating out of the criminal case no. 4356/2005 under section 307 IPC police station Kavi Nagar district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Sessions Judge,Ghaziabad are hereby quashed against applicants Vikram Bahal, Vinod Bahal, Vijay Bahal and Smt. Geeta Bahal. The case property, if any, shall be returned back to the respective parties from whose possession that was recovered.
Dated:18-5-2007.
Rks/8395/05,5393&5394/07