Allowed

Sherandaz Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023A482/5845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise between the applicant and the State. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in cognizable offences.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.10.2022 by ACJM and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1176 of 2022 arising from Crime No. 400 of 2021 are quashed.

Sherandaz Khan and 2 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. - 5845 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sherandaz Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the application during the course of the day.

¶6

Heard Mr. Swarn Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by ACJM, Court No.3, Bareilly as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1176 of 2022, (State Vs. Sherandaz Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.400 of 2021, under Sections 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chainpur, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. The compromise so placed before the court concerned has been rejected stating that he does not have jurisdiction to pass the order on the compromise deed as the offences are non-compoundable.

¶9

Earlier, on 17.02.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.1176 of 2022, State Vs. Sherandaz Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No.400 of 2021, under Sections 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chainpur, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. submits that the compromise effected between the parties may be verified before the court concerned.

¶14

In the interest of justice, the applicant and the opposite party no.2 are directed to appear before the court concerned on 28th February, 2023 and shall submit the compromise, which shall be verified by the court concerned and a report in this regard shall be submitted before this Court within 15 days thereafter.

¶15

List on 17th March, 2023 as fresh.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed. "

¶17

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2023, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 24.03.2023. A letter dated 02.03.2023 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.03, Bareilly has been placed alongwith copy of order dated 28.02.2023 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

¶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, they have 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,

¶23

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by ACJM, Court No.3, Bareilly as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1176 of 2022, (State Vs. Sherandaz Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.400 of 2021, under Sections 406 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chainpur, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly is hereby quashed .

¶28

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

¶29

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Jitendra/-

¶31

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

Sherandaz Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherandaz Khan and 2 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

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another