Allowed

Sahiba Alam and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021A482/9806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings instituted for sections 323, 427, 506 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. Relying on precedents allowing compromise in certain cognizable offences, the Court held the parties had settled and the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 958 of 2019 (State Vs. Sahibe Alam and others) were quashed.

Sahiba Alam and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9806 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sahiba Alam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Anand Pati Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 958 of 2019 (State Vs. Sahibe Alam and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2018, under Sections 323, 427, 506 IPC, P.S. Atta, District Jalaun.

¶7

The argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the parties have entered into compromise and they have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute.

¶8

Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 2, has filed a short counter affidavit stating in paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof 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

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

5. 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 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 of Case No. 958 of 2019 (State Vs. Sahibe Alam and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2018, under

¶18

Sections 323, 427, 506 IPC, P.S. Atta, District Jalaun are, hereby, quashed.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 LBY

Sahiba Alam and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahiba Alam and 3 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

Mohd. Shakib Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Lachaman and Others Vs State

Mohammad Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Netrapal and Others Vs State of U.P.

S. Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ran Vijay Singh and and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another