Allowed

Aamir Rasadi v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2019A482/22901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from Sections 406, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a compromise between parties justified quashing the case, noting no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case Crime No. 1647 of 2009/Case No. 3226 of 2010 pending before C.J.M., Azamgarh are quashed.

Aamir Rasadi Vs State of U.P.and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22901 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aamir Rasadi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 3226 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 1647 of 2009, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of C.J.M., Azamgarh.

¶6

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 16 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶7

Sri Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.2 and stated that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶8

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶9

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶10

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶11

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶12

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶13

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 complaint case.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings in the aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.6.2019 Ruchi Agrahari

Aamir Rasadi v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aamir Rasadi 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

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Banti @ Buntoo Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Vs State of U.P.

Harveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritika Baranwal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anil Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another