Allowed

Afzal Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2019A482/24288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash a charge sheet and proceedings in a case involving cheating and forgery, the single judge held that since parties reached a compromise, prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose. The court quashed the proceedings and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of the complaint case registered in Police Station Kotwali District Bareilly are quashed.

Afzal Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24288 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Afzal Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ayub Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Bhanu Pratap Pal on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Joint affidavit filed by both the parties is taken on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 7.9.2007 and proceedings of case no. 378 of 2016 (State Vs. Afzal Ali and another) under sections 420, 467, 468,471 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali District Bareilly in terms of compromise dated 3.5.2019 between the parties pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, district Bareilly.

¶7

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 10 of the affidavit, filed in support of this application.

¶8

Joint affidavit filed by the parties stating that the parties have entered into compromise and do not want to proceed with the present case.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶20

Order Date :- 26.6.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Afzal Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Ali and Another 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 Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Dhama and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Subhash Jain Vs State of Up

Gopi Chandra Gola Vs State of U.P. and Another