Allowed

Irfan and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2019A482/43625/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed FIR and charge sheet arising from dispute between brothers under various IPC sections. Bases decision on private civil dispute nature and settlement reached between parties following Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of charge sheet dated 13.11.2014 arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2014 are quashed.

Irfan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43625 of 2019 Applicant :- Irfan And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Nasir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Irshad Ahmad

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Sri Irshad Ahmad, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶4

Applicant no.1, namely, Irfan (on behalf of applicants no. 2 to 4) and opposite party no.2- Islam, who are real brothers and duly identified by their counsel, are present in person. Their signatures have also been verified by their counsel.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd Nasir, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.11.2014 bearing No. 300 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs. Irfan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2014, S.T. No.252 of 2015, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 I.P.C., Police Station Sambhal Kotwali, District Sambhal, pending in the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, an 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 real incident. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present the parties to the dispute, who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties 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, namely, Islam does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶8

A joint application has also been filed in this regard wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed, copy of which is annexed as Annexure - 5 to the application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants on the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶10

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court :-

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Cort 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 the case of 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.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 13.11.2014 bearing No.300 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs. Irfan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.378 of 2014, S.T. No.252 of 2015, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506/34 I.P.C., Police Station Sambhal Kotwali, District Sambhal, pending in the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 12.12.2019 Priya

Irfan and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Umesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Sharma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Lal Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Neetu and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Devendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramakant and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another