Allowed

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/5364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that the dispute between the parties had been settled via a verified compromise, and quashing the proceedings served no useful purpose, citing Supreme Court precedents on compromise in criminal cases.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5399 of 2021 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are quashed.

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5364 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Maulana Abdul Sami And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shilpa Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha to conclude the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5399 of 2021 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of case crime no. 05/2021, P.S.- Didoli, Amroha in the light of compromise dated 10.12.2021 arrived between the parties, copy of the same is annexed in the application.

¶7

Earlier, on 10.03.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants states that matter has been compromised between the parties. He further states that the compromise dated 10.12.2021 (annexure-8) has been filed before the Court below but same has not been verified as yet by the learned court below.

¶11

On these facts, as the parties have arrived for some amicable settlement regarding which compromise duly arrived at between the parties is pending verification before learned court below and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicant pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.

¶12

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5399 of 2021 under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of case crime no. 05/2021, P.S.- Didoli, Amroha shall be kept in abeyance against the applicants.

¶13

However, learned counsel for the applicants, as prayed, is granted three

¶14

weeks time to get the compromise deed (annexure-8) verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof, on or before the next date of listing before this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of this order before the court below within two weeks from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.

¶16

As prayed, put up as fresh in the week commencing 25.04.2022."

¶17

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2022, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, has been passed the order dated 23.01.2023 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels. Certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 23.01.2023 has been passed on to the Court today, which is kept on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶20

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶21

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

¶22

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶23

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.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5399 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.05/2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S.- Didoli, Amroha, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha is hereby quashed .

¶27

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

¶28

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Jitendra/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maulana Abdul Sami and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Malik Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nirupama Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Madaan and 3 Others. Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Ashu Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another