Allowed

Mateen and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024A482/14394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise between the accused and thevictim. The Court held that since the dispute was amicably settled and the victim had no intention to pursue the matter, the case was fit for quashing subject to a deposit.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings and chargesheet in Criminal Case No. 11471 of 2022 are quashed subject to the deposit of Rs. 10,000 by the applicants with the trial court.

Mateen and 5 Others vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130180

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14394 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mateen And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The Vakalatnama of Sri Manoj Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents is not on record. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order-sheet.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicantsMateen, Bashit Hasan, Aatif, Mosin, Rauf Ahmad and Aabid, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned chargesheet dated 31.05.2018 in Criminal Case No. 11471 of 2022 (Old No. 25829 of 2018) (State Vs. Mateen and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 500 of 2017, under Sections 354, 354-A, 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut on the basis of compromise dated 02.12.2023 pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

It is submitted that the victim is a widow of cousin brother of the applicant no.1.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of court and on the basis of compromise the parties have filed the the compromise application before the concerned court for its verification after which the concerned court has verified the said compromise vide its order dated 04.12.2023. It is argued that the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are not interested to pursue the matter pending in the trial court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the applicants and therefore the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties which was duly verified by the concerned trial court.

¶12

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶13

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the entire proceedings of case as prayed for by the applicants.

¶14

The present application is allowed.

¶15

The entire proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants depositing Rs.10,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 AS Rathore

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mateen and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mateen and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Balwant Singh vs State of Up

Mohammad Shahid vs State of U.P.

Shweta Shashikant vs Directorte of Enforcement

Vikas Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Gupta and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another