Allowed

Mohammad Qadeer and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant filed application under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet and consequential proceedings under Sections 147, 352, 504, 506 IPC. A compromise deed was verified by the lower court as genuine and voluntary. Citing Apex Court precedents, the court allowed quashing based on the settled dispute and parties' lack of interest in proceeding despite non-compoundable nature of offences.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge-sheet dated 23.06.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.06.2020, and entire consequential proceedings are quashed.

Mohammad Qadeer and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49917

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 430 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Qadeer And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Mohd. Rais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

This Court vide order dated 24.01.2024 directed the parties to file compromise deed before the court below concerned and the court below was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶7

In the present case, the sections involved are 147, 352, 504, 506 IPC.

¶8

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.01.2024, compromise deed was filed before the court below concerned and the same vide its report dated 03.02.2024 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.

¶9

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

¶10

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 at between the parties.

¶11

Not only the above considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of Hon'ble 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

¶12

(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; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 2306.2019 (Annexure No. 1 to the application) against the applicant vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 5489 of 2020 relating to case crime no.136 of 2019 under Sections 147, 352, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Kotwali Nagar, District-Ayodhya and cognizance / summoning order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure No. 2 to the application), passed in the then Case No.5489 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2019 (supra) and the entire consequential proceedings pursuant to the impugned Charge-Sheet (supra) are hereby quashed.

¶13

The petition is allowed .

¶14

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Arnima

¶16

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

Mohammad Qadeer and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Qadeer and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow 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

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ishhaq Alias Ishhaq Ahmad and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Yasoob Abbas and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Others

Suman vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Mohd. Adil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Nandini Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others