Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ms. Ashwini Singh v. State Of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

Ms. Ashwini Singh v. State Of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 773 of 2022 | 29-07-2022

Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr.Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr.Vishal Jalan, Advocate who appears for opposite party No.2. Vakalatnama filed by Mr.Vishal Jalan, Advocate is taken on record.

2. Present revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III in Misc. Case No.2810 of 2022 whereby the learned Magistrate has accepted the application filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and directed for lodging the FIR against the revisionist for investigation of the offence.

3. Opposite party No.2 took a flat in Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. It appears that opposite party No.2 has paid Rs.10,57,954/- towards booking amount/sale consideration of the said flat but the said flat was not delivered nor entire sale consideration was paid to her. Opposite party No.2 instituted a case being Complaint Case No.69 of 2014. Said case was decided in favour of opposite party No.2 vide order dated 18.10.2017. Thereafter, she instituted Execution Case No.67 of 2018.

4. It appears that opposite party No.2 was not satisfied with the judgment of the District Consumer Commission, thereafter, she instituted appeal being Appeal No.331 of 2022 before the State Commission.

5. The State Commission vide order dated 14.06.2022 has directed the Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited to pay Principal amount i.e. Rs.10,57,954/- with interest amount of Rs.11,85,994/- besides aforesaid amount, Rs.50,000/- compensation was also awarded in favour of opposite party No.2.

6. Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that entire amount as directed by the State Commission has been paid to opposite party No.2. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that he has received entire amount as directed by State Commission, and nothing remains to be paid by Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited.

7. Considering the aforesaid fact, order passed by learned A.C.J.M. for registering the FIR and to investigate the offence has lost its efficacy as parties have settled their dispute in terms of judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 passed by State Commission.

8. The revision is allowed. Impugned order 06.07.2022 (supra) is hereby quashed.

Advocate List

  • Dr. Pooja Singh

  • G.A.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2022/12568
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss.156(3) & 408 — FIR — Dismissal of application for registration of FIR — When warranted — Dispute between parties settled by Consumer Forum — Revision allowed, impugned order quashed (Paras 7 and 8)