Allowed

Sameer Siddiqui @ Cheenu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/2115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave Petitioner's criminal appeal filed under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST Act seeking quashing of proceedings due to a compromise. The Allahabad High Court, relying on cited precedents, observed that the compromise was verified and parties did not wish to pursue the case, allowing the appeal and quashing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet dated 10.01.2017, cognizance order dated 28.04.2017, and entire proceedings of Case No. 983 of 2016 are quashed.

Sameer Siddiqui @ Cheenu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47611

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2115 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sameer Siddiqui @ Cheenu And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd.Imran Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

Short counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned summoning order dated 28.04.2017 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow and charge-sheet dated 10.01.2017 in Special Sessions Trial No. 155/2017 arising out of case crime No. 983 of 2016, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 323, 427 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, police station-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow including the entire consequential proceedings thereof in terms of the compromise dated 01.03.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 18.04.2023, the matter was sent before the court below for verification of the compromise deed.

¶11

It is evident from the record that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the court below vide his report dated 26.05.2023. The compromise deed is appended as

¶12

Annexure 6 to the application, which goes to show that respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the appellants. As per the short counter affidavit filed today, it is apparent from paragraph No. 7 that respondent No. 2 does not want to press the instant criminal proceedings initiated by him against the accused persons/present appellants as per the terms of the compromise as executed between the parties, and the answering deponent has no objection if this Hon'ble Court quashes the criminal proceedings.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 46 6, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Charge sheet dated 10.01.2017, cognizance order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 983 of 2016, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 323, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act,

¶18

P.S.-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 983 of 2016 are hereby quashed .

¶19

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Karan

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer Siddiqui @ Cheenu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Siddiqui @ Cheenu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko 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

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Aditya Kumar @ Aditya Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ruchika Chaurasiya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Suyashi Jaiswal Vs Shri Ajay Jaiswal and Another