Allowed

Mohd. Furqan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024A482/5390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order and charge-sheet in a criminal case involving domestic offenses. The court quashed the proceedings after parties reached a mutually agreed compromise, which was duly verified by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 06.04.2023 and charge-sheet dated 07.10.2022 in Criminal Case No.34656/2023 arising under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act provisions were quashed.

Mohd. Furqan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43612

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5390 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd. Furqan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Jameel,Mohammad Naseem,Mohd. Talha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kahkashan Zaidi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.5, DistrictLucknow in Criminal Case No.34656/2023 and charge-sheet dated 07.10.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0276/2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, P.S. Chowk, District- Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 01.04.2024, a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the trial court vide report dated 02.05.2024.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court.

¶11

Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR

¶12

SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶14

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed and the summoning order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.5, DistrictLucknow in Criminal Case No.34656/2023 and charge-sheet dated 07.10.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0276/2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, P.S. Chowk, District- Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶15

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.6.2024 V. Sinha

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Furqan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Furqan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. 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

Hariom Kumar vs Dr. Manoj Agrawal, Chief Medical Officer, Lko.

Rakesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Mohd. Aiyub Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rananjay Singh Sengar vs Sanjiv Kumar Addl. Secy. Union of India and Central Regist. of Coop. Societies New Delhi and Others

Harinam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others