Allowed

Mohd. Shahban and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023A482/29779/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed to quash charges and proceedings in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations. The court found that a verified compromise existed between parties, making continued prosecution futile and oppressive, thus exercising inherent power to quash the impugned charge sheet and proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge sheet dated 28.09.2020 and entire proceedings of Case No. 38 of 2023 against the applicants were quashed.

Mohd. Shahban and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:217014

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29779 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shahban And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jamaluddin Hashami

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2020 and proceedings of Case No. 38 of 2023 (State vs. Mohd. Azam and others) arising out of case crime no. 632 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Allahabad on the basis of compromise dated 27.07.2023.

¶8

3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The marriage of opposite party no. 2 with Mohd. Azam (son of the applicants) was solemnized on 26.11.2018 but on account of acrimonious relation, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report on 17.12.2019 against her husband Mohd. Azam and other family members including the applicants, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submited on 28.09.2020 on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicants. It is also pointed out that Mohd. Azam (husband of opposite party no. 2) died on 09.06.2021. Thereafter the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application dated

¶9

27.07.2023 has been filed before the concerned court below which was directed to be verified vide order dated 16.08.2023. Pursuant to said order, the compromise between the parties concerned has been verified by the concerned court below and in this regard, a report dated 04.09.2023 has been submitted before this Court which is on record.

¶10

4-On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶11

5-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶12

6-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶13

7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by th e Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , AIR 2019 SC 1296, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end.

¶14

8-In view of the above, impugned charge sheet dated 28.09.2020 and entire proceedings of aforesaid Case No. 38 of 2023 (State vs. Mohd. Azam and others) arising out of case crime no. 632 of 2019 against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶15

9-In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Saurabh

¶17

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

Mohd. Shahban and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shahban and Another 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

Vishal Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulab Singh @ Vivekanand and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Patel and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dori Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chandra Shekhar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another