Allowed

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019A482/14036/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed. The proceedings arising from a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed based on a verified compromise deed filed between the applicant and the opposite party during the hearing. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in certain cognizable non-compound

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet no. 95 of 2016 and entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 8231 of 2016.

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14036 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rahman @ Atur Rahman And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Amitabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the charge sheet no. 95 of 2016 dated 6.7.2016 as well as the entire Criminal proceeding of Case No. 8231 of 2016 (State v. Rahman and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0177 of 2015 under sections 498A, 323,504,506 IpC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Meerut pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that parties have entered into compromise upon the intervention of some respectable persons of the society and relatives of both the parties and has filed their compromise deed 11.3.2019 as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of application. It is further contended that as on date no dispute exist between them.

¶9

Perused the compromise deed 11.3.2019 filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of application and as on date no dispute exist between them.

¶10

In view of the above contention this Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:- B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 .

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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 case.

¶13

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶14

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.4.2019 ssm

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

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

Sayeed Bhaee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Victoria Sausan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Manju Lata Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahnawaj @ Shanu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tamseel Ui Jamshed Vs State of U.P. and Another