Allowed

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023A482/19504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a dowry harassment case. The proceedings were quashed due to a verified compromise between the parties, concluding that continuing the trial would cause oppression despite the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2697/2010 against the applicants are quashed.

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171239

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19504 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vakil Ahmad Hashmi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijendra Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record on board.

¶7

The present applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2697/2010 (Hazi Abid Hussain Vs. Vakil Ahmad Hashmi & others) U/S: 498-A, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station-Rasoolpur District-Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, District- Firozabad.

¶8

Late Hazi Abid (father of opposite party nos. 2 and 3) had filed complaint dated 07.10.2002 against the present applicants leveling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. After considering the contents of the application and the statements made under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned magistrate has issued process against the present applicants vide order dated 24.04.2003. During pendency of trial both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. On the request made on behalf of the counsel for the parties, coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.06.2023, has remitted the matter before the trial court for verification of compromise. For ready reference, order dated 07.06.2023 is being quoted herein below:-

¶9

"1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the records.

¶10

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2697 of 2010 (Haji Abid Hussain vs. Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Rasoolpur, district-Firozabad, pending before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Firozabad.

¶11

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and the opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place on 6.9.2022 and the compromise-deed has been annexed as Annexure-V to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶12

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

5. In view of above facts, the applicants shall file an application along with the compromise-deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.

¶14

6. Put up as fresh on 08.8.2023 before appropriate Court, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.

¶15

7. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till the next date of hearing."

¶16

In pursuance of the order dated 07.06.2023, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad has submitted his verification report dated 13.07.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 12.07.2023. Perusal of the order dated 12.07.2023 reveals that both the parties were personally present before the court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise without any durace. Accordingly, compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants, in eventuality of the amicable settlement between the parties and in view of the verification of the compromise, has submitted that the instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed on the basis of the said compromise. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried that hatchet and they have no grudges against each other. To quash the orders impugned as well as entire criminal proceedings, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶18

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶19

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

¶20

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶21

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶22

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶23

In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

¶24

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶25

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶26

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶27

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

¶28

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶29

(vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

¶30

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶31

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶32

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶33

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶34

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶35

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending

¶36

inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2697/2010 (Hazi Abid Hussain Vs. Vakil Ahmad Hashmi & others) U/S: 498-A, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station-Rasoolpur DistrictFirozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, District- Firozabad against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶38

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

¶39

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Pkb/

¶40

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ankit Kumar @ Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Pawan Lal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shri Jiledar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another