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

Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1097 of 2023

Applicant :- Mustkeem And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,Meenu Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that it is matrimonial dispute between the parties and they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a compromise had taken place between them on 8.9.2022. Copy of compromise deed has been appended as Annexure 4 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 22.2.2023 directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned and file compromise for verification.

¶8

As per report of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge(Junior Division)/FTC(Crime against Women), Meerut dated 3.4.2023 kept on record, parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court on 31.3.2023. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-

¶11

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

¶12

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶13

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not

¶14

private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶15

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶16

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶17

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶18

In view of the aforesaid fact, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the Trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the N.B.W order dated 22.10.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2953 of 2020(State vs. Mustkeem and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 178 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354-kha IPC & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Civil Judge(Junior Division)/FTC(Crime against Women), Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 P.P.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mustkeem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prempal Vs State of U.P. and Another