Allowed¶13

Abid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022CRLP/11141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Suneet Kumar and Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, JJ.), order dated 30.8.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11141 of 2022 (Abid vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others): writ petition allowed and F.I.R. dated 24.07.2022 in Case Crime No. 66 of 2022, Police Station-Milak Khanam, District Rampur (Sections-323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (2) (va) S.C./S.T. Act) quashed on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties and the no-objection of respondent no.3, relying on Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303. Counsel: Sunil Kumar Upadhyay for petitioner; G.A. for the State; Vivek Shukla for respondent no.3.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 24.07.2022 in Case Crime No. 66 of 2022, Police Station-Milak Khanam, District Rampur. ¶13

Abid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11141 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Abid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 24.07.2022, in Case Crime No. 66 of 2022, under Sections-323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections-3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (2) (va) S. C. / S. T. Act, Police Station-Milak Khanam, DistrictRampur.

¶7

It is urged that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court; a copy of settlement deed to this effect has been appended as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 states that respondent no.3 has no objection if present F.I.R. is quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 , wherein, the Court summarized as follows:

¶9

" any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

¶10

From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably being civil in nature.

¶11

Having regard to the view taken in Gian Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned F.I.R. be quashed to do complete justice between the parties.

¶12

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, the the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed.

¶13

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 HR

¶15

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.09.01 17:29:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Iksha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahipal and 2 Others Vs the State of Up and 2 Others

Hari Pratap and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Payal @ Ankur Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarwari Bano Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others