Allowed

Sherbaaz Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2019A482/40620/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court quashed criminal proceedings where the applicant and respondent settling a civil dispute entered into a compromise. Noting that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial post-settlement, the court invoked precedent allowing quashing for listed offences to allow parties to resume normal relations.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 805 of 2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandpur, are hereby quashed.

Sherbaaz Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40620 of 2019 Applicant :- Sherbaaz Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd.N. Khan

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mohd. Nuruddin Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet dated 5th May, 2011 submitted in Criminal Case No. 805 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 235 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Chandpur, District-Bijnor as also the order of summoning dated 12th September, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D./Judicial Magistrate), Chandpur, District, Bijnor.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.

¶8

In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 enclosing the copy of the compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2 as Annexure-S.C.A.-1 to the short counter affidavit filed.

¶10

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.

¶11

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 16th November,

¶12

2019, the applicant, namely, Sherbaaz Khan and opposite party no.2, namely, Nazmul Hasan are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶13

On the instruction received, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶14

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶15

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

¶16

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein 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. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶21

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 805 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 235 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Chandpur, District-Bijnor pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D./Judicial Magistrate), Chandpur, District, Bijnor, are hereby quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 18.11.2019 Sushil/-

Sherbaaz Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherbaaz Khan 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

Sher Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hambeer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another