Allowed

Mohd. Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024/3862/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC based on a mediation settlement. Parties confirmed a voluntary settlement agreement; relying on Apex Court precedents on quashing after compromise, the court quashed the entire proceedings in terms of the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 439 of 2019 quashed in terms of settlement agreement.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48669

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3862 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Akhtar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Anuj Pandey,Suyash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 0439 of 2019 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad against the applicant, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 of the IPC to P.S. Cantt, District Faizabad. Further prayer is made to stay the entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 439 of 2019.

¶8

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023, has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties.

¶9

In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 21.04.2023, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 03.01.2024 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- E', wherein it has been mentioned 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.

¶10

With regard to the prayer sought including quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement agreement, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the 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. 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.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite parties do not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶12

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report dated 03.01.2024 submitted by Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, entire proceedings in issue are hereby quashed in terms of the settlement agreement.

¶13

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶15

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

Mohd. Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home 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

Smt. Pushpa Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aansar Husain Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Chandra Saxena and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Kheri and Others

Pooja Sharma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nitin Tiwari and Thru. Father Satish Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Lal Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others