Allowed

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another v. State of U.P. through Secratery Home and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023A482/4482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery arising from a waqf property dispute. The court held that, due to a verified settlement agreement between the parties and their lack of grievance, the proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire proceedings of Case No. 28479 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2017 pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182314

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4482 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secratery Home And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Anas Raza

¶6

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Mohammad Anas Raza, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the further proceedings of Case No. 28479 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Meerut, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of waqf property dispute, the present criminal case was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants, however with the intervention of respected members of both the family and society, parties have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has next drawn the attention of the Court to a settlement-agreement dated 24.9.2021 drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to this application.

¶11

This court vide order dated 12.4.2022 had directed the parties to appear before the court below and to get the said compromise verified. Pursuant to the order dated 12.4.2022, both the parties appeared before the court below and in presence of the parties, the said compromise has been verified and a report dated 11.5.2022 has been forwarded to this Court, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 7.7.2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, entire proceedings be quashed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and on instructions has acknowledged the said compromise and has further stated, on instructions, that opposite party No. 2 has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed against the applicants.

¶14

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 , 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 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 shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 28479 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Delhi Gate, DistrictMeerut, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶18

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 KU

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another v. State of U.P. through Secratery Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murtaza Saleem @ Ali Murtaza Saleem and Another v. State of U.P. through Secratery 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

Akhtar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Alias Santosh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Mahrotra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Tarun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanand and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another