Mohd Hafiz Ansari @ Abdul Hafiz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27561 of 2022

Applicant :- Mohd Hafiz Ansari @ Abdul Hafiz And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rashid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Rashid Ali, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶5

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 18.1.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 0199 of 2015, under sections 406, 504, 506 Police Station- Ramnagar, District Varanasi, Cognizance Taking Order dated 6.5.2016, passed by IXth Additional Chief Judicial Matistrate in Case No. 2058 of 2018 (State Vs. Akhtar Ansari) arising out of aforementioned case crime number.

¶6

Present application came up for admission on 5.9.2022 and this Court passed the following order:

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case no.2058 of 2018 (State Vs. Akhtar Ansari and others) arising out of case crime no.0199 of 2015 under Sections 406, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District - Varanasi pending in the court of IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in terms of compromise.

¶9

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 19.1.2016. The said compromise will be filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as annexure-6 to the application. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶10

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶11

Put up this case on 11.10.2022 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants undertake to ensure the presence of both the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 22.9.2022 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that

¶13

effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶14

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-4 to the application to the court concerned within three days.

¶15

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants. "

¶17

On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for applicants submits that pursuant to order dated 5.9.2022, opposite party-2 has not yet appeared before Court below. Effect of the same is that compromise entered into by the parties has not been accepted.

¶18

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present application. He submits that compromise alleged to have been entered into by parties is dated 19.1.2011. However, there is nothing on record to show that after the comprise was entered into by the parties, an application fur further investigation was filed either before the Senior Superintendent of Police/Court concerned for further investigating of the matter in the light of aforesaid document. Applicant has remained silent for almost five years in approaching this Court. As such, present application is hopelessly bared by laches. Moreover the laches in filing the present application have not been sufficiently explained. Since the laches in filing present application have not been sufficiently explained, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶19

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant has referred to the judgements of this court in Kuljeet Singh @ Mintoo and Others Vs. Kailash Chand Agarwal , 2008 2 Crimes (HC) 147 and of the Supreme Court in Satisch Chandra Ratanlala Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Another in support of his submission that no offence as alleged is made out against applicant. Since this Court is not inclined to entertain the application on the ground of delay, therefore, the merits of the application are not required to be examined.

¶20

In view of above, the application fails. It is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

¶21

Accordingly, it is dismissed on the ground of laches. Order Date :- 16.1.2023/Arshad

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Hafiz Ansari @ Abdul Hafiz and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Hafiz Ansari @ Abdul Hafiz and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farjand Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Rajkumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaipal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farahim Khan Vs State of U.P.

Gurubaksh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pallavi Sonkusley Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others