Allowed

Ikram Urf Kala and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2019A482/20071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash a charge sheet involving offences under 498A IPC and D.P. Act. Based on a compromise and subsequent affidavit confirming settlement, the court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings and ordered their quashing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2473 of 2018 and impugned charge sheet No. 35/2018 are quashed.

Ikram Urf Kala and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20071 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ikram Urf Kala And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, and Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer to stay/quash the impugned charge sheet No. 35/2018 dated 14.1.2018 in Criminal Case No. 2473 of 2018 (State v. Ikram urf Kala and others) under sections 498A, 323, 504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Dehli Gage, District- Aligarh pertaining to Case Crime No. 803 of 2017 pending in the court of ACJM-9, Aligarh.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that parties have entered into compromise on 1.10.2018 and daughter of opposite party no.2 Farha is living happily with her husband applicant no. 2 Shakeel and both have jointly sweared a notary affidavit on 3.5.2019 and stated that there is no any dispute between the parties and both are living jointly. A copy of the notary affidavit sworn by daughter of opposite party no. 2 and the applicant no. 2 Shakeel jointly dated 3.5.2019 has been filed and annexed as Annexure -6 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application.

¶9

Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2, has also stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute and as on date there exist no dispute between the parties, hence no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

¶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

¶13

prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶14

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

¶15

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 ssm

Ikram Urf Kala and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram Urf Kala 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

Smt. Santosh Vs State of U.P.

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

Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeet @ Golu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kewla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another