Quashed

Mainuddin @ Seebu Siddiqui and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023/3957/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed the charge sheet and summoning order in a criminal case where the parties had mutually settled the matter and the compromise was verified by the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that no useful purpose is served in proceeding further despite the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 08.12.2020 and summoning order dated 09.04.2021 were quashed.

Mainuddin @ Seebu Siddiqui and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:83141

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3957 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mainuddin @ Seebu Siddiqui And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mubin Ahmad,Zia Ur Rehman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Aslam Beg

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 08.12.2020, as well as summoning order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Case No. 1388 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 465 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Phardhan, District Kheri.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 27.06.2022, the matter was sent before the court below for verification of the compromise deed.

¶9

It is evident from the record that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the court below vide his report dated 19.07.2022. 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 applicants.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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 sheet dated 08.12.2020, as well as summoning order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Case No. 1388 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 465 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Phardhan, District Kheri are hereby quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 VKS

¶18

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

Mainuddin @ Seebu Siddiqui and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainuddin @ Seebu Siddiqui and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Smt. Amna Khatoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Suprotik Banerji and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ansh Verma @ Ravi Verma Thru. Wife Smt. Bal Mati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

G.N. Bansal and 2 Ors. A482 1694/1985 of Allahabad Vs U.P.Pollution Control Board and Anr.

Lallan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Punnwasi @ Purnmasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others