Allowed

Gulfam Ali v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023A482/9447/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings and charge sheet filed under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. The court held that since the parties settled the matter through a verified compromise deed, prolonging the proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No.4641 of 2018 including the charge sheet dated 24.04.2018 were quashed.

Gulfam Ali Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9447 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gulfam Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Ram Raj Pandey,S.P.S. Chauhan,Sukhendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sundeep Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. None present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.4641 of 2018 (State Vs. Gulfam Ali) arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2018, under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat including charge sheet dated 24.04.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State submitted that parties settled the matter by way of compromise, copy of the report of verified compromise deed is filed today before the Court, hence proceeding and impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶8

The attention of this Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶9

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶10

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶11

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶12

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶13

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

¶14

In the aforesaid cases, 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

¶15

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 would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned cases.

¶17

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶18

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Shahroz

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulfam Ali v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam Ali v. State of Up 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

Lalit Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

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

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P and Another

Ram Sewak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another