Mukhtdeer @ Firoz and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Deptt Home Civil Sectt and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49302

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1010 of 2022

Applicant :- Mukhtdeer @ Firoz And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Deptt Home Civil Sectt And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nafees,Alok Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ahmad Siddiqui,Sartaj Ali Ansari

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

In compliance of order of this Court, the parties are present before this Court who have been identified by their respective counsels.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 9.4.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.243/2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & section ¼ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 3.10.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.79016/2019 (State Versus Mukhtdeer @ Firoz & others) in terms of the compromise deed dated 17.2.2022, as contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 respectively to this petition.

¶11

This Court, after considering the facts of the case as also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, on 09.03.2022, passed the following order:

¶12

"Vakalatnama filed by Shri Imran Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶14

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in pursuance of the impugned chargesheet dated 9.4.2018 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 3.10.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kaiserbagh, District- Lucknow passed by 1st ACJM, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.79016/2019 in terms of compromise deed dated 17.2.2022.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered into between them by means of compromise deed dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure-4).

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite parties does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.

¶17

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on 22.3.2022 and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court before the next date of listing.

¶18

List in the week commencing 4.4.2022 along with verification report showing the name of Shri Imran Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate as counsel for opposite party No.2 in the cause list.

¶19

Let the original/certified documents for compromise be returned to the counsel for applicants/petitioners after retaining a photo copy of the same.

¶20

Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants/petitioners."

¶21

It appears from the record that in terms of the order of this Court, quoted above, parties were required to appear before teh trial Court and the trial Court on 06.11.2023 verified the compromise according to which both the parties are not willing to continue their life with each order and the compromise deed was verified on 06.11.2023 and according to para 10 of the deed, the opposite party no. 2 does not want to continue with the Case Crime No. 243 of 2017, quoted above.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs.

¶23

Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 0465/2022 , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶24

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukhtdeer @ Firoz and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Deptt Home Civil Sectt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtdeer @ Firoz and Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Deptt Home Civil Sectt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajamal Hasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ankur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Naveen Kumar @ Naveen and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shaqib Khan @ Shaqib and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Arun Kumar Shukla and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another