Allowed

Yamin and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024A482/20525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from fraud charges. The court found that a compromise was amicably reached between parties and verified by the trial court. The case was quashed subject to the applicant depositing Rs. 10,000 with the District Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Specific orders to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and all proceedings in Case No.1027 of 2012, subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000.

Yamin and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131048

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20525 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yamin And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Sharma,Shivniket Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Awadh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Yamin, Sidakat, Sakhawat, Veerpal, Ajay, Ranjeet and Anil with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no.28/12 dated 11.4.2012, cognizance order dated 11.4.2012 taken by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II in Case No.1027 of 2012 (State Vs. Yamin and others) arising out of Case Crime No.207/12 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending before A.C.J.M. II, Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise and further with the prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of this application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute. It is argued that the applicants had earlier filed Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.40182 of 2023 (Yamin and 7 others Vs. State of U.P) in which vide order dated 1.11.2023, coordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to appear before the concerned court for filing a proper compromise deed along with said order and directed the trial court to verify the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. In pursuance of the said order, the applicants appeared before the trial court and filed the compromise deed. It is argued that the court concerned vide order dated 4.1.2024 verified the said compromise, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, as such the proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State admitted the fact of compromise and stated that they have no objection if the proceeding of the

¶10

aforesaid case is quashed against the applicant (s).

¶11

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, the said compromise has been also been verified by the 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 proceedings as prayed for by the applicant(s).

¶14

The charge sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicant (s) depositing Rs.10,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district.

¶15

The present application is allowed .

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Gaurav Kuls

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yamin and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamin and 6 Others v. State of U.P. 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

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

Rahis vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Tarun Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another