Allowed

Mohd. Tahir and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023A482/350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants for offences including 498A and 506 IPC. Relying on a verified compromise deed dated 29.8.2022 and the guiding principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court held that the dispute was private in nature, parties had reconciled and resumed bonafide living together, and

What did the court decide?

The proceeding of Case No. 887 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 19.7.2019 arising from Case Crime No. 112 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 506, 323 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act are hereby quashed.

Mohd. Tahir and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 350 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Tahir And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.887 of 2019 (State vs. Mohd. Tahir), as well as summoning order dated 19.7.2019 passed by the Additional chief Judicial magistrate, Court no.6, Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 506, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police StationHafizganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Bareilly in pursuance of compromise arrived at between the parties on 29.8.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present controversy arises out of matrinonial discord between the husband and wife, however, a better sense prevailed on them and they have come to terms and after burying their differences have settled down the dispute outside the court amicably. In this regard a compromise deed dated 29.8.2022 was jotted down between them.

¶9

On earlier occasion, this Court vide order dated 9.1.2023 has referred the matter to the court below in order to verify the compromise deed dated 29.8.2022 and pass a suitable order in this regard after verifying the covenants of compromise and its signatories.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly dated 19.1.2023, annexed as SA1 along with supplementary affidavit. By order dated 19.01.2023 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly

¶11

after summoning the contesting parties have verified the compromise between them, its covenants and the signatories and has affirmed the factum of compromise between the contesting parties.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that after the compromise in the matter, the husband and wife have reunited and they are residing together peacefully and happily, therefore, the proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed, as under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

¶14

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.

¶15

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303. (iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

¶16

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

¶17

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

¶18

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

¶19

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶20

ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground

¶21

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 noncompoundable.

¶22

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

¶23

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;

¶24

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;

¶25

vi. In the 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 appropriately 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;

¶26

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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶27

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;

¶28

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal

¶29

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

¶30

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being 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."

¶31

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶32

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned proceeding of the present case against the applicants, is hereby quashed.

¶33

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

¶34

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 M. Kumar

¶35

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

Mohd. Tahir and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tahir and 5 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

Nandram @ Nanda Vs State of U.P.

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

Shyam Narayan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Ganesh Kushwaha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Gunja Devi Vs State of U.P.