Allowed

Mohd. Sharif and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2019A482/22817/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal prosecution arising from a civil dispute between the applicant and the complainant. Finding that the parties had amicably settled their dispute through a compromise dated 4.12.2018, the court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire pending criminal case proceedings arising from the compromise between the parties.

Mohd. Sharif and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22817 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Sharif And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

A short counter affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash their prosecution of Case No. 2626 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime no. 532 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., P.S. Bkhira, districtSant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 which had led to the institution of the impugned criminal prosecution of the applicants on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged against them by the opposite party no. 2, has been amicably settled and the parties have entered into a compromise on 4.12.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as annexure no. 7 to the affidavit accompanying this application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is no longer interested in the prosecution of the applicants, and she has no objection if the proceedings of the aforementioned case as well as the prosecution of the applicants is quashed.

¶9

Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, short counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶10

Paragraph no.7 of the said short counter affidavit read as under:

¶11

"That thereafter due to intervention of common friends and respective villagers a compromise was executed between the parties, and the matter was settled between the parties with their free will and consent without any pressure and they have given under takes that they are not interested to contesting the case which is pending between them before the Court concern, and for the same they have made compromise affidavit before the Notary on 13.09.2018. A true/photocopy of the compromise affidavit dated 13.09.2018 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. S.C.A.-1 to this short counter affidavit."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶13

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶15

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.6.2019 Faridul

Mohd. Sharif and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sharif and 9 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

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Brahm Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Jain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another