High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14263 of 2021 Applicant :- Abdullah @ Abdullah Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Obaidullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 621 of 2016 (State vs. Abdullah and others) in case crime no. 99A/2015, under Section 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nizamabad, District Azamgarh and charge-sheet no. 80 of 2015 dated 27.10.2015 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 27.8.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no.15, Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:- (i) the dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 is purely private and civil in nature; (ii) the first information report came to be lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 14.6.2015 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged; (iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred; (iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 16.8.2021 the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Ist, Azamgarh has sent his report dated 7.12.2021, according to which the compromise deed had been filed by the parties before the Court below and the same has been verified vide order dated 25.11.2021. A copy of the compromise deed dated 16.1.2020 and the order of the Court below dated 25.11.2021 are annexed with the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Ist, Azamgarh. The opposite party no. 2 had also appeared before the concerned Court and was identified by his counsel. He has not filed any affidavit in the present case before this Court disputing the aforesaid facts. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case