This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of dowry harassment and other offences. The quashing was permitted due to a post-filing compromise between the parties.
The impugned FIR registered is hereby quashed; consequences shall follow.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20549 of 2017
Applicant :- Sher Deen @ Bhura And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in Crl. Case No. 3738/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Sher Deen @ Bhura & others) Case Crime No. 161 of 2016, U/s 498-A, 323, 376, 511, 506 IPC & section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as the charge sheet dated 21.04.2017.
On 10.07.2017, following order was passed
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in Crl. Case No. 3738/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Sher Deen @ Bhura & others) Case Crime No. 161 of 2016, U/s 498-A, 323, 376, 511, 506 IPC & section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar.
As far as applicant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the following order is being passed:
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
averments made in the present application, no case for any interference has been made out. Accordingly, the prayer, as made above, is refused.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on its own merit in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
As far as applicant nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the following order is being passed:
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.
Counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks by the learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2 and rejoinder affidavit to be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and also in view of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application, prima facie, a case for grant of an interim relief is made out.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings as against the applicant nos. 3 and 4 in Crl. Case No. 3738/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Sher Deen @ Bhura & others) Case Crime No. 161 of 2016, U/s 498-A, 323, 376, 511, 506 IPC & section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar pending in the concerned court below shall remain stayed."
Today, when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit along with compromise deed dated 06.09.2018, copy of which has been annexed at page 8 to the supplementary affidavit. In the supplementary affidavit it has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 that parties have entered into a compromise.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit in which the opposite party no. 2 herself is the deponent. It has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 is not interested to proceed the matter any further and parties have entered into a compromise and living
separately and she has no objection if proceedings are quashed and the present application is allowed.
Accordingly, the application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned FIR registered as is hereby quashed. Consequences shall follow.
Thus, on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties that the present application may be allowed in terms of the compromise and in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC, 303; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and 2014 AIR SCW 2065; Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
The present application is allowed as prayed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Ujjawal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings should be allowed based on settlement.
Whether compromise between parties entitles the court to quash the FIR under settled principles of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶12
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶12
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶27
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and 2014 AIR SCW 2065 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and AnotherApplied¶27
Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and Another
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sher Deen @ Bhura And 3 Others
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
