Allowed¶14

Hapheez @ Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2024A482/18202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing on basis of compromise; matrimonial dispute; Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act; case crime no. 66 of 2022, P.S. Sahson, District Etawah; charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023 quashed; pending before A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Etawah; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 relied upon; verified compromise; AGA no objection; applicants Hapheez @ Bablu, Sanno Begum, Ahamd Husain; counsel Pankaj Kumar Mishra; decided 12.8.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC:130667.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of case crime no. 66 of 2022, including the charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023, quashed against applicants Hapheez, Sanno Begum & Ahamd Husain. ¶14

Hapheez @ Bablu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of case crime no. 66 of 2022, including the charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023, could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶7

Court's answer

The matter relates to a matrimonial dispute which is private in nature; a compromise between the parties would not have an adverse impact on society, and there is nothing to indicate that the parties have criminal antecedents.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since the compromise filed by the parties had already been verified by the trial court, and considering the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (AIR 2019 SC 1296) and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned proceedings, whose continuance would be nothing but wastage of the Court's time.

¶12

Key takeaways

The impugned charge-sheet/cognizance-summoning order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicants, namely Hapheez, Sanno Begum & Ahamd Husain, were quashed.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Raj Beer Singh, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of case crime no. 66 of 2022 (State v. Ahmad Husain & others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Sahson, District Etawah, including the charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023, pending before A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Etawah. The dispute was matrimonial and private in nature; the parties had amicably settled it and the compromise filed before the trial court stood verified; the informant did not wish to pursue the proceedings; learned AGA had no objection; and nothing indicated criminal antecedents. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296, the Court held that continuance of the proceedings would be mere wastage of the Court's time and accordingly quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings against applicants Hapheez, Sanno Begum & Ahamd Husain.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130667

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18202 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hapheez @ Bablu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 28.03.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 29.08.2023, of case crime no. 66 of 2022, (State Vs. Ahmad Husain & others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Sahson, District Etawah, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Etawah, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is husband of opposite party no. 2/informant and remaining applicants are family members of applicant no. 1 and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the compromise, filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending

¶9

and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶11

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶12

In the instant case, it appears that matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, as the continuance of the same would be nothing but wastage of time of Court.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheet/cognizancesummoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against applicants, namely, Hapheez, Sanno Begum & Ahamd Husain are hereby quashed.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 SP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hapheez @ Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hapheez @ Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases