Allowed

Ibrahim and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/12789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from an incident involving the SC/ST Act and IPC. Citing precedents, the court held that the proceedings could be quashed as the parties reached a free-will compromise and were not interested in pursuing the case.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of S.T. No.837 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising out of Crime No.34 of 2023 are quashed.

Ibrahim and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:431

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12789 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ibrahim And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and Sri Gyanendra Pathak, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

In this case, the petitioners have initially filed Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application U/S 482 No.10244 of 2023 wherein this Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 directed the parties to appear before the court concerned and the court concerned was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶8

In the present case, the Sections involved are 147, 323, 504, 506, 447 IPC and Sections 3 (1) Da, Dha, SC/ST Act.

¶9

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the learned Court below i.e., Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bahraich, who vide order/ report dated 01.12.2023 and corrected order/ report dated 13.12.2023 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶11

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

¶12

at between the parties.

¶13

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 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 S.T. No.837 of 2023, (State Vs. Ibrahim and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.34 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 447 IPC and Section 3 (1) Da, Dha, SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Bahraich pending in the court of Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich are hereby quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 RBS/-

¶17

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

Ibrahim and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Anr.

Shailendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Harkesh Kumar Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others