Allowed

Azeem Malik v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2023A482/38261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Section 482 CrPC application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 307 and 427 IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that quashing was warranted due to a settlement between parties and the absence of a useful purpose in continuing prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Quashed entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No.597 of 2017, Crime No. 376 of 2016 under Sections 307, 427 IPC.

Azeem Malik Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:199136

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38261 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Azeem Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sonakshi Arora,Araf Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No.597 of 2017, Crime No. 376 of 2016, under Sections 307, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 6) Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute out of the court. It has been next submitted that it is a no injury case and no medical examination was conducted. It is next submitted that applicants earlier approached this Court by filing 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 30811 of 2023 and the Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 referred the matter to the trial court to verify the compromise entered into between the parties. The trial court vide order dated 28.09.2023 submitted a report that parties appeared before the court below and they have been verified by their counsels. A report in this regard has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private disputes and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel

¶11

for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶12

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶15

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of S.T. No.597 of 2017, Crime No. 376 of 2016, under Sections 307, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh, is hereby quashed.

¶16

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Meenu Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Azeem Malik v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azeem Malik 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Mustafa @ Sannu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Archana Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Shahi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Niranjan @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another