Allowed

Ruksana and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019A482/1914/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Criminal Bench quashed criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC. The court found that a settlement agreement had been executed between the parties, making the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process and defeating the purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to restore peace.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of complaint case no. 571 of 2018 under Section 406 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate are quashed.

Ruksana and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1914 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ruksana And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Azhar Hussain

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

On the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

¶6

Present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 571 of 2018 (Smt. Ujjama Vs. Rashid and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Shamshabad, district Agra pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Heard Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶8

In pursuance of order dated 22.1.2019 passed by this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. Parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and on 27.7.2019 settlement agreement was executed between the parties. The settlement agreement is on record.

¶9

Referring to the settlement agreement entered into between the parties, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that parties have compromised their dispute and the complainant is living happily in the house of her in-laws. 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 in keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants 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 opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶11

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

¶12

In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable 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

¶13

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 Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶16

The entire proceedings of complaint case no. 571 of 2018 (Smt. Ujjama Vs. Rashid and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Shamshabad, district Agra pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, Agra against the applicants are quashed.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Sachdeva

Ruksana and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruksana and 4 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

Amarpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Vimla Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Kanchan Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Sumit @ Lallu Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Vimlesh Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another