Allowed

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/38661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A matrimonial dispute where parties settled amicably and verified a compromise deed. The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings citing the Supreme Court's principles regarding quashing in family disputes upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings of Case No.10085 of 2019 State vs. Ashu Mansuri under various IPC sections are hereby quashed.

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 Others Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38661 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Bhushan Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Diwakar Vikram Singh holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and parties had settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a written compromise has taken place between the parties on 26.10.2021. Copy of compromise deed has been filed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit filed in support of application. This Court vide order dated 01.12.2022 directed the parties to appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise deed.

¶7

As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly dated 09.01.2023 that in compliance of order dated 01.12.2022 parties appeared before the Court concerned on 09.01.2023 and filed compromise for verification. Parties were duly identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the Court below.

¶8

Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

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 paragraph no.15 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶10

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

¶11

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;

¶12

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 private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶13

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;

¶14

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;

¶15

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."

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Case No.10085 of 2019(State vs. Ashu Mansuri and others) arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 336 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Virendra

¶19

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

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Vijay Pati Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aazam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prakash Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Koli Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Seema and 2 Oters Vs State of U.P. and Another