Allowed

Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023/498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings based on a settlement reached between parties before a compromise dated 21.02.2023.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act are hereby quashed.

Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem and Another Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44917

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 498 of 2023 Applicant :- Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Sagar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Gyan Sagar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2018, (Jagdish Vs. Shiv Shankar & Ors.), under Sections 323, 504, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Laliya, District Balrampur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to some trivial issues, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed, which was treated as complaint case by the court below and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order was passed. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the case before the court below, the parties have resolved the issue and file compromise that the private respondent does not want to prosecute the applicants. The photocopy of the compromise dated 21.02.2023 is annexed as Annexure 4 to the supplementary afÏdavit. Joint afÏdavit in relation to the compromise has also been filed before this Court on 29.05.2023. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 , learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in case, the dispute has already been resolved outside the Court, there is no hindrance in quashing of the proceedings. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that applicants may appear before the court below and apprise all these facts at the appropriate stage.

¶9

However, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the dispute has been resolved in between the parties and the private respondent does not want to prosecute the applicants.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the application, compromise dated 21.02.2023 as well as joint afÏdavit filed on 29.05.2023, it is evident 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. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2018, (Jagdish Vs. Shiv Shankar & Ors.), under Sections 323, 504, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Laliya, District Balrampur are hereby quashed.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 VKS

¶15

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

Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. 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

Anwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sita Singh Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

James Illoduba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Deptt. and Others

Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradip Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Ramesh Chandra @ Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. and 2 Others