Allowed

Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2021A482/2250/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted for Dowry Prohibition Act violations and Section 498-A IPC following a verified compromise between the husband and wife, where a settlement amount was paid and parties decided to live separately.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1754 of 2011 under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2250 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Brijesh Kumar pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 150 of 2011 dated 18.9.2011 and further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1754 of 2011 (New No. 184 of 2020) State Vs. hafiz Rahis and others arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2011, under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sayadnagli, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the court of Judicial MagistrateII/Civil Judge (Junior Division-II), J.P. Nagar (Amroha).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No. 1 was married to opposite party No. 2 in the month of November, 2009, however, on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated by opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Subsequently, with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and now no grievance remains against each other. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that pursuant to the compromise, applicant No. 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to the opposite party No. 2 in full and final settlement of all claims and dues and nothing remains to be paid to her and they have decided to live separately.

¶8

This court vide order dated 3.2.2021 had referred the matter to the court below for verification of the compromise, which has duly been verified and in this regard, a report dated 19.3.2021 has been sent to this Court, a copy of which forms the part of this application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also filed an affidavit and in paragraphs- 2, 4 and 5, it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise out of their consent without any undue influence and coercion. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has made a statement at the Bar that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been received by opposite party No. 2 in terms of all her claims and in view of the compromise made between the parties and in

¶11

order to maintain cordial and harmonious relations between them, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶12

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of :-

¶13

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶14

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶15

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶16

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶17

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶18

Wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶20

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1754 of 2011 (New No. 184 of 2020) State Vs. hafiz Rahis and others arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2011, under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sayadnagli, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II/Civil Judge (Junior Division-II), J.P. Nagar (Amroha), are hereby quashed.

¶21

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.11.2021 KU

Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad and 2 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

Taj Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seema Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagbhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another