Allowed

Aslam @ Mohd. Aslam and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019A482/19993/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and a summoning order. The Court found that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled via compromise, continuing the trial would be an abuse of process, and no fruitful purpose would be served.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 2492 of 2019 and summoning order dated 30.07.2016 quashed in terms of compromise.

Aslam @ Mohd. Aslam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19993 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aslam @ Mohd. Aslam And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Chandra,Prem Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Applicant no. 6 Shabina and opposite party no. 2 Mohammad Arshad are present in person before the Court and were identified by their respective counsels.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the state.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 30.07.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case no. 2492 of 2019 (Old No. 134 of 2015), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station Phulpur, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh.

¶8

On query made by the Court from the parties present in person, they stated that they have settled the dispute and complaint proceeding be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicants states that since parties have settled the dispute as is clear from the annexure no. 5 and the statement made by the parties, entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint be quashed. 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 applicant 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 .

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶14

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case no. 2492 of 2019 (Old No. 134 of 2015) as well as summoning order dated 30.07.2016 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station Phulpur, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Azamgarh against the applicant are quashed in terms of compromise.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 Sanjeet

Aslam @ Mohd. Aslam and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam @ Mohd. Aslam and 5 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

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mairaj Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Alias Matu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Yadav Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Satya Prakash and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another