Allowed

Mabood Ahmad and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023A482/375/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings and an impugned order. Quashing was permitted based on a verified compromise deed and Supreme Court authority allowing settlement in cognizable offences, deeming no useful purpose served by continuance.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2602 of 2018 and the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 are quashed.

Mabood Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 375 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mabood Ahmad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Compliant Case No.2602 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushabmi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have settled the matter by way of compromise. A certified copy of the verified compromise deed and the verification order have been placed before the Court by way of a supplementary affidavit, hence proceedings and impugned order are liable to be quashed.

¶8

The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶9

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶10

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶11

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

In the aforesaid cases, 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

¶15

and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶16

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 would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned cases.

¶17

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are hereby, quashed.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Shahroz

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mabood Ahmad and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mabood Ahmad and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murad Ali and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajendra Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushar Begam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedram Sharma Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Narayan Datta Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another