Allowed

Sameer Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024/1568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During application for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order, relying on a valid compromise and Supreme Court precedents indicating continuance would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet dated 04.02.2020 and cognizance order dated 12.03.2021.

Sameer Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25203

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1568 of 2021 Applicant :- Sameer Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Fahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tariq Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri. Mohd Fahim, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel and Sri Tariq Khan, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.02.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 221/2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chawk, District Lucknow as well as the cognizance order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Lucknow in Case No. 1414 of 2020 (State Vs. Sameer Khan And Another), on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶7

A copy of the compromise dated 21.02.2021 has been annexed with the application wherein it is recorded that the applicant no.1 has paid Rs. 5 lakhs to the opposite party no.2 and the marriage between them has been dissolved by divorce. It is stated in the compromise that the opposite party no.2 does not want continuance of any proceedings against the applicants.

¶8

The opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the compromise and has given her consent for proceedings being quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶9

Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

¶10

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and the charge sheet dated 04.02.2020 as well as the cognizance order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Lucknow in Case No. 1414 of 2020 (State Vs. Sameer Khan And Another), are hereby quashed.

¶11

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 Preeti.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Khan and Another v. State of U.P. 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

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

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Mangal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others