Allowed

Saif Rahman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023A482/8484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that a compromise between parties is a ground for quashing criminal proceedings. Relying on settled Apex Court precedents, the Court observed that the present case was fit for quashing and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet dated 04.02.2021 and summoning order dated 20.05.2022 were quashed and further proceedings stayed during pendency of the application.

Saif Rahman and 3 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8484 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Saif Rahman And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri U.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Saif Rahman, Munizar @ Abdul Malik, Shabra and Sameer with the prayer to allow this application and quash the impugned summoning order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, District Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 2999 of 2022 (State Vs. Saif Rahman and others) in Case Crime No. 650 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection on Marriage) Act, 2019, at Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor as well as impugned charge sheet dated 04.02.2021, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, District Bijnor on account of compromise between the parties dated 23.07.2022 and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case, during pendency of this application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants states that vide order dated 15.03.2023 an order was passed by this Court in which the compromise between the parties were directed to be verified by the court concerned.

¶9

As per office report dated 19.04.2023, a report of concerned trial court has been received stating therein that in compliance of the said order dated 15.03.2023 the settlement deed was verified in presence of both the parties. The report is annexed with the order sheet.

¶10

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of

¶11

Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (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) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶12

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceedings as well as charge sheet as prayed for by the applicants.

¶13

The present application is allowed.

¶14

The charge sheet dated 04.02.2021 as well as summoning order dated 20.05.2022 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saif Rahman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saif Rahman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitya Nand and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Verma @ Mantan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudesh Kumar Bhati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others