Allowed

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018A482/43129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and charge sheet filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that parties had reached an amicable settlement, divorced, and the continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2014 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act are quashed.

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43129 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Rustam Ansari And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Achyut Jee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge sheet under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act whereon the cognizance has been taken on 14.4.2015 in Case Crime No. 202 of 2014 P.S. Ubhanv, District Ballia as the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 have reached the settlement and resolved their dispute amicably.

¶6

From the side of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Nairunnisha Affidavit dated 1.12.2017 has been filed today, wherein it is mentioned that her marriage was solemnized with applicant no. 1 Rustam Ansari on 16.11.2011. On 17.5.2014 opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR being case Crime No. 202 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ubhanv, District Ballia. After investigation charge sheet was filed in the said case crime number and learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 14.4.2015. Meanwhile she (opposite party no. 2) and the applicants have reached the settlement and have resolved their dispute amicably. She has taken divorce from the applicant no. 1 and has solemnized her second marriage with Mr. Khursheed Ahmed, resident of Harpur, Bihra, Harpur, Ballia. It is further mentioned that the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant no. 1 have settled their dispute in writing before the Mediator of the Mediation centre, Ballia. She is spending her happy married life with the second husband Mr. Khursheed Ahmed and now she has no grievance with applicant no. 1 and wishes to end criminal proceedings initiated against them ( in the form of Case Crime No. 202 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Ubhanv, District Ballia) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Achyut Jee and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Sri Ranjeet Singh and the learned A.G.A.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 , wherein in paragarph 5, 57 and 58 of the judgment. The Hon'ble

¶9

Supreme Court has laid down the law in respect of compromise in cases not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

¶10

5. In B.S. Joshi , the undisputed facts were these : the husband was one of the appellants while the wife was respondent no. 2 in the appeal before this Court. They were married on 21.7.1999 and were living separately since 15.7.2000. An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A/323 and 406, IPC at the instance of the wife on 2.1.2002. When the criminal case registered at the instance of the wife was pending, the dispute between the husband and wife and their family members was settled.

¶11

It appears that the wife filed an affidavit that her disputes with the husband and the other members of his family had been finally settled and she and her husband had agreed for mutual divorce. Based on the said affidavit, the matter was taken to the High Court by both the parties and they jointly prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the husband and his family members on the basis of the FIR registered at the wife's instance under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR as in its view the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC were non-compoundable and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code could not be invoked to by-pass Section 320 of the Code. It is from this order that the matter reached this Court. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers could quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 (Pg. 682) of the Report held as under:

¶12

"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX- A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

¶14

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no

¶15

category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

¶16

In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

¶17

58. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi1, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the concerned Bench(es).

¶18

In view of above position of law, it is apparent that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial matters where due to compromise between the offender and victim the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression. If in such a case the prosecution is allowed to continue despite compromise, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law.

¶19

In the case at hand since the parties have entered into a compromise as the opposite party no. 2 has clearly stated on oath that she has taken divorce from the applicant no. 1 and has married another person with whom she is living peacefully and happily, there is no reason why the criminal proceedings in the present case be allowed to continue.

¶20

In view of above facts and circumstances, this is found to be a

¶21

fit case where the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ubhanv, District Ballia deserves to be quashed by allowing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ubhanv, District Ballia are quashed .

¶22

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 A.P. Pandey

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Snt. Jehra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.