Allowed

Adil Shamim and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/40191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a domestic offence. The court held that since a valid compromise was entered and verified by the trial court, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial, and thus, the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1861 of 2022 were quashed.

Adil Shamim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40191 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Adil Shamim And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Upadhyay,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1861 of 2022 (State Vs. Adil Shamim and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 558 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Security on the right of Marriage) Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj.

¶7

On 15.12.2022, the Court has passed following order:

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Crl. Case No.1861 of 2022 (State Vs. Adil Shamim and others) arising out of Case Crime No.558 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Security on the right of Marriage) Act, P.S. - Kareli, Prayagraj.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

¶11

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.

¶12

List after two months.

¶13

Until further orders of the court, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."

¶14

Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, vide order dated 31.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Copies of which have been placed before this Court alongwith order sheet of the present application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶23

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

¶24

Accordingly, the proceedings of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1861 of 2022 (State Vs. Adil Shamim and Others), arising

¶25

out of Case Crime No. 558 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Security on the right of Marriage) Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad are hereby quashed.

¶26

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 SK Srivastava

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adil Shamim and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adil Shamim and 7 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satveer Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another