Allowed

Abdul Samad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024A482/485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a dowry/cruelty criminal case after mediation produced a settlement agreement. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on quashing upon settlement, the court allowed the application and quashed all proceedings arising from the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings arising from Case Crime No.132 of 2023, including charge-sheet and summoning order, quashed.

Abdul Samad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 485 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Samad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Akhtar,Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ghufran Hussain

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.104874 of 2023 arising out of Charge-sheet No.1 of 2023 dated 06.06.2023 in pursuance of the Case Crime No.132 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station B.B.D., District Lucknow as well as summoning order dated 06.09.2023.

¶7

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 18.04.2024, has referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, for amicable settlement between the parties.

¶8

In compliance of order of this Court dated 18.04.2024, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court alongwith settlement agreement dated 01.08.2024 has submitted its report, which has been annexed as 'Annexure- E', wherein it has been mentioned that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1,

¶10

State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. , quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶11

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶13

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

Abdul Samad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Purushottam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ram Kripal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidationdistt. Amethi and 5 Others

Lallan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Dhaneshwar Verma vs Chaudhary Ram Singh, Executive Engineer, Office of Executive Engineer, Bahraich

Daya Ram and Others vs Record Officer/ Ziladhikari, Ayodhya and Others

Shiv Prakash Singh Vs Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Lalganj Distt. Raebareli and 3 Others