Allowed

Faijan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023CRLP/14320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed the First Information Report registered under Sections 366, 279, and 304-A IPC. The court found that a settlement agreement had been executed between the petitioner and the state, satisfying settled legal principles for quashing criminal complaints.

What did the court decide?

The impugned First Information Report dated 11.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 241 of 2023 under Sections 366, 279, 304-A IPC is hereby quashed.

Faijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196803-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14320 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Faijan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kanhaiya Soni Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sharad Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

1 Heard Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kajal Seth holding brief of Sri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 11.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 241 of 2023, under Sections 366, 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Seohara, District Bijnor.

¶8

Vide order dated 26.9.2023 the matter was referred to the mediation centre.

¶9

Perused the office report dated 11.10.2023 and the settlement agreement dated 6.10.2023 which indicates that matter has been peacefully settled between the parties and they have settled their differences on the terms mentioned in paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement dated 6.10.2023. The paragraph 6 is quoted as under:-

¶10

"6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:-

¶11

a) That both the parties have already settled their dispute and in this regard they have produced a 'Samjhautanama' dated 23.08.2023 before the Centre. The parties stated that all the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid Samjhautanama have been fulfill. The parties further reiterate and reaffirm all the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Samjhautanama and the same shall be a part of this settlement also. The photocopy of the aforesaid Samjhautanama is being annexed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

¶12

b) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other regarding present dispute shall be withdrawn by the

¶13

parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.

¶14

c) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also.

¶15

d) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse."

¶16

It is submitted that as between the parties compromise had already taken place therefore, the impugned First Information Report dated 11.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 241 of 2023, under Sections 366, 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Seohara, District Bijnor is liable to be quashed.

¶17

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab), (2014) 9 SCC 653 (Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand) and also (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and in view of the settlement agreement dated 6.10.2023, the impugned First Information Report dated 11.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 241 of 2023, under Sections 366, 279, 304-A IPC, P.S. Seohara, District Bijnor is hereby quashed.

¶18

The present petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Lalit Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faijan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faijan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Sumit Gupta Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Pawan Singhal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aarif and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanshi Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anish and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pragya Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others