Allowed

Imran and 04 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018A482/44954/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 370A, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, and the Emigration Act upon hearing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on a settlement between parties and Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1780 of 2018 under Sections 370A, 120B, 504, 506 IPC and Emigration Act.

Imran and 04 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44954 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Imran And 04 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.1780 of 2018, Case Crime No.524 of 2017, under Sections 370A, 120B, 504, 506, 420 I.P.C. and Section 10/24 Emigration Act, 1983, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kannauj, District Kannauj.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise.

¶8

Sri Irshad Ahmad, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and does not dispute the above contention raised on behalf of the applicant.

¶9

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶10

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶11

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶12

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶13

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶14

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶15

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others

¶16

Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶18

Accordingly, the entire aforesaid proceedings are, hereby, quashed.

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 SS

Imran and 04 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran and 04 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naurangi Lal and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Surajbhan and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Somesh Rana @ Someshvar Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Vs State of U.P. and Another