Allowed

Shakir Ali and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2023/12486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheets and proceedings. The court noted a verified compromise deed where the respondent did not wish to prosecute, invoking inherent powers to do real justice.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheets dated 07.06.2016, 27.04.2017, 17.03.2020 and entire proceedings of Case No. 3338 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC are quashed.

Shakir Ali and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:84618

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12486 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shakir Ali And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Khushboo Singh and Ms. Maya Ojha, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶8

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheets dated 07.06.2016 27.04.2017, 17.03.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3338 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 1794 of 2022, the matter was sent before the court below for verification of the compromise deed.

¶10

It is evident from the record that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the court below vide his report dated 09.08.2023. The compromise deed is appended as Annexure 4 to the application, which goes to show that respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicant.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. fairly concedes that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

¶12

Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, viz., Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333 , B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any further.

¶14

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed.

¶15

Charge sheets dated 07.06.2016 27.04.2017, 17.03.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3338 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶16

OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned, forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.12.2023 VKS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakir Ali and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir Ali and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Raj Tiwari Converted Name Devraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Chandreshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Shakeel Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another