Quashed

Mohd. Raees and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/1017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought to quash criminal trial proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on a verified compromise agreement. The bench noted that injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt objects. Considering the settlement and specific facts, the court ruled it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings in State Vs. Mohd. Raees and others Case No. 3313/2017 quashed on the basis of a verified compromise.

Mohd. Raees and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11715

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1017 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Raees And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Farhan Alam Osmany,Kavita Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGAI for the State and Mohd. Raziullah, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.2 & 3 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the petitioners, has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the injury report of opposite party no.3, the same is also taken on record.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed the following reliefs:-

¶9

"i. To quash the trial proceeding of the Case No. 3313/2017 State Vs. Mohd. Raees and others on the basis of compromise dated 20.12.2023 that was duly verified by the C.J.M. Balrampur on 04.01.2024.

¶10

ii. To issue any other order or direction in the nature to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicants.

¶11

iii. Allow this application with cost in favour of the applicants."

¶12

Sri Osmany has submitted that the petitioners have no criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the parties have settled their dispute amicably by entering into compromise, which has been verified by the learned trial court concerned on 04.01.2024 in furtherance of the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.12754 of 2023. Sri Osmany has further submitted that as per the injury report, there are three injuries and those injuries are simple in nature. Injuries no.1 & 2 are caused by blunt and hard object causing lacerated wound on the mid of lower lip and upper lip. Injury no.3 is abrasion below the chin. Sri Osmany has submitted that

¶13

though the Apex Court has held in re; The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 , that if the FIR and charge sheet has been filed against the accused person under Section 307 IPC and injuries are serious in nature, then the criminal proceedings may not be set aside/ quashed on the basis of compromise if entered between the parties but in the same judgment, the Apex Court has held that if the injury/injuries is/are simple in nature and the weapon by which the injury has been caused is not firearm etc, the High Court may consider those facts while considering the fact that the issue in question has been resolved by the parties by way of compromise.

¶14

Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has also stated that the parties have entered into compromise and if the criminal proceedings are quashed, the private opposite parties would have no objection.

¶15

However, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I, has submitted that the Apex Court in re; Laxmi Narayan (supra) has cautioned the High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings wherein the FIR and charge sheet has been filed under Section 307 IPC treating such offence as offence against society, not against private parties but the leverage so given in such judgment may be considered by this Court if this Court finds appropriate to do so.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and also the injury report, which clearly indicates that all the injuries are simple in nature and injuries no.1 & 2 are caused by blunt and hard object whereas injury no.3 is caused by friction and the parties have settled their dispute by entering into compromise, I feel it appropriate that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶17

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶18

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10

¶19

SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 8.2.2024 RBS/-

¶22

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

Mohd. Raees and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Raees and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Dutt Awasthi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Abbas Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lucknow and Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Waseem Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akbari Begam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Jang Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another