Allowed

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024A482/8210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving matrimonial and dowry-related offences. The court relied on a verified compromise agreement and cited various Supreme Court precedents to conclude that the chance of conviction was bleak and the proceedings served no purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR/Case Crime are quashed qua the applicant.

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63118

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8210 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sheikh Mohammad Shariq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Kumar Saxena,Akram Azad,Sayyed Farooq Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Mohammad Saleem, Sri Mohd. Taiyab, Sri Faraz Ahmad and Sri Mohd. Saqib Khan, Advocate(s) have put in appearance for the private opposite party no. 2 and has filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed with a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.68629 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow as well as summoning order dated 28.03.2023.

¶9

It appears that after considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants including the dispute between the parties and the offence against the applicants, this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 7131 of 2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

It appears from the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure No. 6) that the Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C., Crime Against Women, Lucknow has verified the compromise, mentioning therein 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.

¶11

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) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of

¶12

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, 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 qua the applicant(s).

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶15

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

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq 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

Shatrughna Pandey and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Pradumn Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko. and Another

Mohd. Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Secy. Lko.

Om Prakash and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Kashi @ Kashi Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Uttam Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another