Allowed

Mohammad Qaiyoum v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/1719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act after a joint compromise dated 05.08.2023 resolved the dispute between parties, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ramawatar.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.04.2023 and proceedings under Case No. 19743 of 2015 quashed. Bail granted with conditions.

Mohammad Qaiyoum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:430

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1719 of 2023 Appellant :- Mohammad Qaiyoum Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Gourav Singh,Sudhanshu S. Tripathi,Wali Nawaz Khan

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukteshwar Mishra,Poornendra Kumar Awasthi

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

AfÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the private respondent/complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case No. 19743 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohd. Qaiyoum) arising out of Case Crime No. 186A of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 394, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case, but the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in mechanical manner, on which, cognizance has also been taken by the court below. Thereafter, discharge application was filed, which was rejected by the order under challenge in the present appeal. It is vehemently submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the issue was resolved in between the parties by way of compromise dated 05.08.2023. The original compromise is annexed with the afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant on 07.08.2023. It is further submitted that informant/complainant does not want to prosecute the appellant and they are living peacefully. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC

¶11

966 , learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned proceedings may be quashed in terms of compromise.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that charge sheet was filed on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating OfÏcer. However, they do not dispute the fact that issue can be resolved by way of compromise and the proceedings can be quashed in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra).

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the appeal, afÏdavit filed today as well as compromise, it is evident that during the pendency of the trial as well as the present appeal, the issue has been resolved in between the appellant and the complainant in the form of joint compromise dated 05.08.2023, in which, the parties have categorically stated that complainant does not want to prosecute the appellant and they are residing peacefully. The complainant has also stated in his afÏdavit that no statutory compensation was received by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) has held that for the offences related to SC/ST Act, if the issue has been resolved by way of compromise, then the criminal proceedings can be quashed in terms of compromise.

¶14

In view of above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that as the issue has already been resolved in between the parties by way of compromise dated 05.08.2023, the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case No. 19743 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 186A of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 394, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow and

¶15

the proceedings of Case No. 19743 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohd. Qaiyoum) are hereby quashed.

¶16

The appeal stands allowed.

¶17

Let appellant-applicant, Mohammad Qaiyoum be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Qaiyoum v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Qaiyoum v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. 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

Ram Singh @ Nanku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Prabha Shankar Yadav @ Gulle Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Balak Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Mayawati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another