Allowed

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019A482/42413/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute involving Sections 323, 504, 506, and 354 I.P.C. The court held that since the parties had reached a compromise and settled their differences, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2014 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, are hereby

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42413 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Pal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Adil Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Anil Kumar Pal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge-sheet no. 136/2014 dated 14th Sepember, 2014 and supplementary charge-sheet no. 136A/2014 dated 17th February, 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2014 (State Vs. Hakeem Khan @ Nanhey Khan & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha (J.P. Nagar) pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in view of the compromise dated 19th November, 2018.

¶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 dated 19th November, 2018 has been entered into between the parties, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.

¶9

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.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, wherein in paragraph-2 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated

¶11

as follows:

¶12

" That it is pertinent to mention here that a compromise deed have arrived and was filed by the applicant including the opposite party no.2 before the learned court of Additional District Judge Ist, Amroha by which both the parties have decided all dispute in question as well as in that compromise affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has decided and given her undertaking that he does not proceed any proceeding in the Charge-sheet No. 136/2014 dated 14.9.2014 as well as supplementary charge-sheet No. 136-A/2014 dated 17.2.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2014 (State Vs. Hakeem Khan @ Nanhey Khan & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Amroha Dehat, DistrictAmroha (J.P. Nagar), which has already been annexed as Annexure-4 to this affidavit."

¶13

In compliance of the order of the Court dated 26th November, 2019, the applicant no.3, namely, Suhail Khan and opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Kashana are present in Court today, who have been identified by their counsel and their signatures have also been attested by them.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2014 (State Vs. Hakeem Khan @ Nanhey Khan & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha (J.P. Nagar) pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha pending, are hereby quashed.

¶23

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

¶24

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Sushil/-

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

Israr and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Tiwari and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Kalpana @ Pinki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Devi and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Anshul Anand and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another