Allowed

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2019A227/3285/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 227 writ petition, the High Court was petitioned to quash criminal proceedings instituted under various Sections of the IPC. The Court found that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that quashing was necessary to restore peace and that continuing the trial served no fruitful purpose, given the non-heinous nature

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings (Complaint Case No. 687 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2016) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura are quashed.

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3285 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Rizwan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ayub Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bhanu Prakash Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Applicant No. 1 Mohd. Rizwan, applicant no. 3 Mohd. Zahid and respondent no. 2 Kallu Bhai @ Mohd. Irshad as well as newly added respondent no. 3 Smt. Shabana are present in person before this Court and were also identified by their respective counsel.

¶6

Joint affidavit filed on behalf of both the parties as well as Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Bhanu Prakash Verma, Advocate on behalf of newly added respondent no. 3 are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Mohd. Ayub, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 as well as learned AGA for the state.

¶8

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order, or direction to set aside the order dated 06.02.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2016 and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 687 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 452, 307 IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that parties have settled the dispute out of court. Offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex 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.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been

¶11

settled, respondent nos.2 & 3 have no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

¶13

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

¶14

Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.

¶15

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

¶16

The entire proceedings of the order dated 06.02.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2016 and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 687 of 2016, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 452, 307 IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura against the petitioners are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Sanjeet

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rizwan 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

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Kuber and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudesh Chand Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harjeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another