Allowed

Hasan Haider and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in Crime No. 395 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. After verification of the compromise by the trial court, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 395 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC quashed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54761

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 269 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hasan Haider And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Priyam Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed the following main relief:-

¶10

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 10.11.2020, order of cognizance and summoning order dated 26.05.2021 and every proceeding of Case No. 4983 of 2021, Crime No. 395 of 2020, Under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich, State versus Hasan Haider and another, pending in the Court of F.T.C./C.A.W. Bahraich, on the basis of compromise between both side of the parties."

¶11

It appears that vide order dated 12.01.2024, this Court has referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 12.01.2024 on reproduction reads as under:-

¶12

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Priyam Kumar Singh, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. His Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶13

2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 10.11.2020, order of cognizance and summoning order dated 26.05.2021 and every proceeding of Case No. 4983 of 2021, Crime No. 395 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich; State Vs. Hasan Haider and another; pending in the court of FTC/CAW, Bahraich, on the basis of compromise between both side of the parties.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

¶15

petitioners and opposite party no. 2 have amicably compromised their dispute on 16.12.2023. The compromise taken place between the parties has been annexed with this petition as Annexure No. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also agreed on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have entered into a compromise.

¶16

4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

¶17

5. Accordingly, for the purpose of verification of the compromise, petitioners and opposite party no. 2 shall appear before FTC/CAW(Crime against Women), Bahraich on 19.01.2024 alongwith original compromise deed and the learned court below shall proceed to verify the compromise deed. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court below and the same shall be sent to this Court by the next date of listing. The compromise will be made part of the record. The court below in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise.

¶18

6. List the matter before this Court on 05.02.2024.

¶19

7. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be compelled to face the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid case.

¶20

8. Office is directed to return the original compromise to the counsel for the petitioners within three working days from today and the photostat copy of the same will be placed on record.

¶21

9. When the case is listed next, name of Sri Priyam Kumar Singh be printed in the cause list as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2."

¶22

It appears from the letter dated 19.01.2024 sent by the court concerned/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich to this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been verified in terms of above quoted order of this Court, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime and also the observations made by the Hon'ble 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.

¶24

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. 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 aplication 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/Case Crime No. 395 of 2020 , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Arun/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hasan Haider and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Haider and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil . Secrt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Tiwari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Aala Nabi Alias Raza Sheikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Bablu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Kanaujia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohammad Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.