Allowed

Imtiyaz and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2018A482/5778/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the State against applicants following a compromise between the accused and the victims/complainant, relying on Gian Singh to prevent abuse of process even for non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings of Session Trial No. 176 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2012.

Imtiyaz and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5778 of 2018 Applicant :- Imtiyaz And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omkar Nath Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶4

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2017 in Session Trial No. 176 of 2014 (State Vs. Ashfaq and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2012 under Sections 308 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sevarahi, District Kushinagar, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge , District Kushinagar.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the accused applicants have entered into a compromise with the O.P. No.2 (complainant of the above Crime No.) as well as injured in the said case, Jumrazi Ansari.

¶6

Certified copy of the compromise filed before court of Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge is placed on page No.43 of the paper book. On the reverse side of that, the Court has verified compromise entered into between both the parties and has accepted the same under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C., whereas in respect of offence under Sections 308 and 506, the said compromise has been rejected. Learned counsel further contends that since the first informant & the injured in the case have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose would be served in allowing this Criminal proceedings to continue as there would be no possibility of trial resulting in conviction of the accused and would amount to an abuse of process of court.

¶7

Reliance has been placed upon Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein following is held:

¶8

"It would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant, Sri M.S.A. Siddiqui, has also put an appearance from the side of O.P. No.2 (complainant) in this case and has stated that he has no objection if the proceedings of this case are quashed in terms of compromise because complainant does not want to contest this case any further.

¶10

According to the F.I.R., the husband of the first informant (O.P. No.2) had gone out in the morning to pursue his profession as he was a dental surgeon and when in the evening he was returning home on 27.2.2012, the accused Imtiyaz, applicant No.1, Ashfaq, applicant No. 2, Mustqeem, applicant No.3, Ashraf,

¶11

applicant No.4, who were sitting near his house concealing themselves, ambushed upon him with an intention to kill and caused him injuries by 'farwa', 'lathi-danda' which resulted in grievous injuries caused to the husband of the first informant who then was taken to 'tamkuhiraj', P.H.C. from where he was referred to Gorakhpur looking to his condition being serious. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused were threatening the complainant and his family members for being killed. A Case Crime No. 279 of 2012 was registered at P.S. Sevarahi, District Kushinagar under Sections 147, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. wherein after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 325, 308, 504 and 506 against all the present accused.

¶12

On the basis of above arguments from both the sides that both the parties have entered into a compromise and that the court below has already accepted the compromise entered into between the parties under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 176 of 2014 arising out of Crime No.279 of 2012, P.S. Sevarahi which is clear from the affidavit filed by learned counsel for the accused applicant, it is clear that compromise could not be done before court below due to offence under Section 308 & 506 being non compoundable.

¶13

In view of the above, this Court finds that since both the parties have entered into a compromise and that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings of this case to continue before trial court as there would be remote possibility that this trial would result in conviction of the accused, because of the complainant and the injured having entered into a compromise with the accused applicants, therefore, in terms of law laid down in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) , the proceedings of the present S.T. No. 176 of 2014 (State Vs. Ashfaq and others) P.S. Sevarahi, District Kushinagar arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2012 needs to be quashed and are, accordingly quashed.

¶14

This application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.3.2018/A. Mandhani

Imtiyaz and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hausala Kewat Vs State of Up and Another

Rishi Kumar @ Rishipal Vs State of U.P.

Lalu @Krishna Gopal Vs State of Up Another

Virendra and another Vs State of U.P. and another