Allowed

Raja @ Mohd. Asif and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023A482/4908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings founded upon offences under the IPC. Relying on apex court dicta regarding settlements, the court held that since the parties amicably settled their dispute and the trial court verified the compromise, the entire proceeding was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No. 236 of 2019 including the summoning order and charge sheet are quashed.

Raja @ Mohd. Asif and 4 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4908 of 2023 Applicant :- Raja @ Mohd. Asif And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Safiullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the material available on record.

¶4

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 236 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 293 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149,452,323,324,504 IPC, P.S. Nakhasa, District Sambhal including the summoning order as well as charge sheet on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶5

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed before the court below. Thereafter, this Court, vide order 15.2.2023, has sent the said compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed compromise deed before the court below and the same has been verified by the trial Court, vide order dated 01.04.2023, kept on record of this case.

¶7

In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 147, 148, 149,452,323,324,504 IPC.

¶8

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court below has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report dated 03.4.2023 to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶9

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of Case No. 236 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 293 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149,452,323,324,504 IPC, P.S. Nakhasa, District Sambhal are hereby quashed.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.5.2023/RavindraKSingh

¶12

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

Raja @ Mohd. Asif and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja @ Mohd. Asif and 4 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

Yashwant and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 1 Ors.

Dharmu Alias Dharma Alias Bhrambhjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roshan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Saqib and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another