Rahisha Khatoon and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195188

Court No. - 88

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30884 of 2013

Applicant :- Rahisha Khatoon And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Ahmad Nawaz Ansari,Saqib Meezan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Salman Ahmad

¶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, Mr. Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 219 of 2012 (Azam Ansari Vs. Hidayat Ullah and others), under Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationDokar, District-Jalaun at Orai, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.

¶8

3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that applicant no.1-Rahisha Khatoon is wife of opposite party no.2-Azam Ansari and applicant nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Hidayat Ullah, Ahmad, Anisa Begum and Nafisa respectively are relatives of applicant no.1. Marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 05.03.2000 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals, but their marriage was not successful and on account of acrimonious relation, applicant no.1 lodged F.I.R. on 04.02.2012 against opposite party no.2 and his family members, in which charge sheet was submitted, but during trial, on account of compromise between the parties concerned, the prosecution witnesses became hostile and accused persons of the said case have been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 01.04.2015. So far as this case is concerned, it is submitted that on the

¶9

complaint dated 28.06.2012 which is subject matter of challenge in the present application, initially vide order dated 10.09.2013 interim protection was granted to the applicants but during pendency of this application parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court, therefore, this Court vide order dated 28.04.2023 directed the concerned Court below to verify the compromise application, which has been verified by the concerned Court below on 08.05.2023 and a report has been submitted to 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, the proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise and the same 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 has no grievance 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 compromise/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 want to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms

¶13

of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶14

7-The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Ramgopal and another Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Supreme (SC) 529 after wholesome treatment has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise, wherein quashing of proceeding of criminal cases which involved non compoundable offences has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society.

¶15

8-Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I find that the case in hand does not have grave and wider social ramifications and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties, therefore this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end 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 is brought to an end.

¶16

9-In view of the above, proceedings of Complaint Case No. 219 of 2012 (Azam Ansari Vs. Hidayat Ullah and others) against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶17

10-The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Kashifa

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahisha Khatoon and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahisha Khatoon and 4 Ors. 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

Saiyed Ali Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lovekush and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Vaibhav Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. . and Another