Allowed

Akram and Others v. State of U.P. through its Principal Sect. Home And Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023A482/29193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. Based on verified reports from the lower court confirming a compromise between parties, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and ordered the quashing of the summoning order.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding of the summoning order dated 18.07.2009 in Complaint Case No. 24 of 2009 under various sections of IPC were quashed.

Akram and Others Vs State of U.P. through its Principal… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:111001

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29193 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Akram And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Sect. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rekha Sahu

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, holding brief of Ms. Rekha Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

On 18.02.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Rekha Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing proceedings of Complaint Case No. 24 of 2009 (Sharafat Ali Vs. Mustaq Ahmand and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ist, District Amroha pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after summoning of the applicants in the aforesaid, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.

¶12

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶13

List after two months.

¶14

Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶15

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise verification report is kept on record as is evident from office report dated 26.04.2023. The letter of Judicial Magistrate, Amroha dated 08.04.2022 has been placed on record along with order dated 31.03.2022 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties along with their respective counsels.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶18

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶19

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶20

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677 ,

¶21

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶22

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶23

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶24

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the

¶26

above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶27

Accordingly, the proceeding of summoning order dated 18.07.2009 in Complaint Case No.24 of 2009 (Sharafat Ali Vs. Mustaq Ahmad and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., P.S.-Amroha Nagar, District-Amroha, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st, Amroha, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed .

¶28

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶29

It is always open to the parties to approach this Court, in case, the verification has been done by playing fraud.

¶30

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Rahul.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akram and Others v. State of U.P. through its Principal Sect. Home And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram and Others v. State of U.P. through its Principal Sect. Home 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

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

Madhav Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Arti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babloo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pop Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Dilraji and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another