Allowed

Dilshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024A482/541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a case involving offences against women. Relying on prior Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in non-compoundable offences, the court allowed the petition after verifying a settlement deed submitted by the parties.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in Crime No.449/2018 arising from the impugned order dated 29-6-2022 was quashed in respect of the present petitioners.

Dilshad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7359

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 541 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dilshad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dildar Khan, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed the following main relief:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out from the impugned order dated 29-62022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S/D-III)/ A.C.J.M Faizabad, Yasmin Bano Vs Dilshad & other, in case crime No.449/2018 u/s 354(kha), 323, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C of P.S Kotwali Bikapur Distt Faizabad, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S/D-III)/ A.C.J.M Faizabad, to secure the ends of justice & to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court."

¶9

In this case, the petitioners have initially filed Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application U/S 482 No.7798 of 2023 wherein this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 directed the parties to appear before the trial court concerned and the trial court was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶10

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the learned Court below i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III)/ A.C.J.M., Ayodhya, who vide order/ report dated 24.08.2023 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted his report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶12

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioners.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 RBS/-

¶17

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

Dilshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Hiralal @ Ludee and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramnath @ Nattha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arjun Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Jeetu Yadav @ Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilshad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajeev Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 10 Others