Dismissed

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023A482/14858/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging attempt to murder under Section 308 IPC. Despite a verified settlement between parties, the court held that settlement cannot override formalities required for offences involving the human body where prima facie case exists.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC rejected; FIR proceedings continued.

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14858 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Aslam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Chandra,Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Earlier the matter was sent to the learned court below for verification of the settlement claimed between the parties in terms of order dated 12.10.2020. In compliance thereof the parties have got verified the written compromise entered into between them dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure 6 to the application). Thus the learned court below/CJM, Amroha has vide order dated 06.11.2022 verified the compromise.

¶7

As to the dispute, it has been submitted, a petty occurrence had taken place between the parties. It was blown out of proportion resulting in the exaggerated allegations being levelled against the applicants. However, no such occurrence had taken place. No real injury was suffered by any parties. In such circumstances, it has been asserted that no useful may be served allowing the prosecution to continue any further.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, there is evidence of injuries suffered. Fracture injury to the occipital bone have been suffered by Ali Hasan. Therefore no compromise may be recognized in such matters.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present though the parties appear to have entered into settlement of some kind whereunder the opposite party no. 2 may not intend to press the prosecution, at the same time, it is not always the choice of the informant to press or not press the prosecution in offences involving the human body. Insofar as, prima facie material exists in support of the FIR allegation of serving offence alleged under Section 308 I.P.C., notwithstanding, the settlement reached between the parties cannot be recognized. No satisfaction is possible to be reached at present that the dispute between the parties was private or civil or such as may allow the trial to be dropped, at present.

¶10

In view of the above no interference is warranted in the present application. It is accordingly, rejected .

¶11

It is left open to the parties to conduct themselves in the manner they may deem.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Ashutosh

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aslam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Varun Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afroj and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Asha Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Govind Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Naresh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another