Allowed

Amjad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023CRLP/11991/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad allowed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition to quash a police FIR involving matrimonial disputes including sections 498A, 376, and 506 IPC. The court held that given the truce and settlement between the husband and wife, quashing the proceedings secured the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The FIR dated 27.06.2023 arising out of case crime no.181 of 2023 under sections 498A, 323, 377, 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women(Protection of Rights

Amjad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154778-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11991 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Amjad And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Mohd. Sahibe Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3 today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Wahid Zamal, holding brief of Sri Mohd. Sahibe Alam, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 27.06.2023 arising out of case crime no.181 of 2023, under sections 498A, 323, 377, 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police station-Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffar Nagar.

¶9

Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present FIR was lodged on 27.06.2023 arising out of case crime no.181 of 2023 under sections 498A, 323, 377, 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of respondent no.3. Though, the complainant(victim) has lodged the present FIR against six named accused persons but it seems that better sense has prevailed between the parties and both the parties i.e. Amjad and Smt. Nagma have sorted out their differences and disputes and have come to truce and have jotted down the settlement dated 18.07.2023, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶10

Sri Wahid Zamal, holding brief of Sri Mohd. Sahibe Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3 have endorsed the contents of the settlement and submits that the parties have come to truce and both of them are residing happily as husband and wife. Any order for investigation might poison their relationship once again and in order to attain the larger good and with the consent of both the counsels who are representing their respective parties, the aforesaid proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶11

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

¶12

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

¶13

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶14

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1

¶15

4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

¶16

5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶17

6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶18

7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

¶19

8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

¶20

9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

¶21

12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶22

13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

¶23

15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

¶24

16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

¶25

18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

¶26

19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.

¶27

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:-

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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;

¶31

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;

¶32

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;

¶33

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;

¶34

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;

¶35

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;

¶36

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

¶37

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."

¶38

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, the Court deems it proper and to meet to the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶39

The present writ petition stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties and considering the fact that both the parties have come to truce and have sorted out their differences and disputes, the FIR dated 27.06.2023 arising out of case crime no.181 of 2023, under sections 498A, 323, 377, 354, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police station-Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffar Nagar, is hereby quashed.

¶40

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for contesting parties and perusing the entire material available on record. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been

¶41

duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

¶42

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

¶43

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Sumit S

¶44

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amjad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

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

Aabid and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

State of Up vs Vijay Singh s/o Sri Prem Singh

Arun Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Gupta @ Tuntun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others