Allowed

Shahjeb Alam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024A482/21076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, relying on a compromise between the parties and following guidelines from the Supreme Court. The court held that continuing proceedings would be a futile exercise and contrary to the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet and criminal proceedings quashed.

Shahjeb Alam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190395

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21076 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shahjeb Alam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Syed Riyaz Askari,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.05.2020 and proceedings of criminal case no. 14907 of 2020 (State vs. Shahjeb Alam and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 561 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad in view of compromise dated 25.09.2023.

¶8

3-The applicant no. 1-Shahjeb Alam is son of opposite party no. 2, applicant no. 2-Jaheen Khalid is daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and the applicant no. 3-Afzal Husain is brother of applicant no. 2.

¶9

4-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. on 13.11.2019 for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the applicants namely Shahjeb Alam, Jaheen Khalid, Afzal Husain and Khalid Husain (died on 23.08.2021), in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 31.05.2020, on which the concerned court below took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 07.10.2022 to face trial. Thereafter, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application has been preferred before the trial

¶10

court, which has been verified by the concerned court below vide order dated 30.05.2024.

¶11

5-On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore continuance of criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned charge-sheet against the applicant after compromise between them would be a futile exercise and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶12

6-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also filed a short counter affidavit stating inter-alia in paragraph no. 3 that all the differences are settled and there is no dispute between the parties.

¶13

7-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicant to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶14

8-The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Ramgopal and another Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 Supreme (SC) 529 after wholesome treatment has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under

¶15

Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise, wherein quashing of proceeding of criminal cases which involved non compoundable offences has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society.

¶16

9-Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I find that the case in hand does not have grave and wider social ramifications and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties, therefore this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.

¶17

10-In view of the above, charge-sheet dated 31.05.2020 and proceedings of criminal case no. 14907 of 2020 against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶18

11-The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Saurabh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahjeb Alam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahjeb Alam and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile Delinquent A.B vs State of U.P. and Another

Shadma Shafaut and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunny Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

state of up vs Hazi Irfan Solanki and 2 Others

X- Juvenile vs State of Up and 3 Others