The High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 498-A, 506, 313, 376, 377 IPC allowing the petitioners to settle the dispute amicably outside court citing relevant apex court precedents.
Quashed the impugned First Information Report dated 2.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 617 of 2023 under Sections 498-A, 506, 313, 376, 377 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192275-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14308 of 2023
Petitioner :- Iftekhar Rijwi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Karuna Chaturvedi,Reeta Kumari
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
One copy of the short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no,. 4, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Reeta Kumari Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 as well as learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the record.
The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 2.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 617 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 506, 313, 376, 377 IPC, Police Station Bisrakh, District Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that entire family members of petitioner no. 1 Iftekhar Rijwi has been roped in this offence. It is further submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 states that the parties have entered into compromise and they have buried their differences and disputes. She has also filed short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 4 annexing the compromise deed dated 10.8.2023 wherein both the parties have put their signatures and now they are leading their life happily. It is further contended that as both the parties have settled the dispute amicably outside court and do not further want to litigate, ordeal of trial procedure would be a futile exercise and the chance of ultimate conviction would be bleak, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners deserves to be quashed, therefore, this petition may be decided in terms of the settlement arrived at between them.
The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State
of Kerala reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343 has observed that even if the offence (s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Not only the above considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC, Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 70, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 30, K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 22, Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 46, Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653, C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389, C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290, Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench), State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688, Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716, Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 and Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute with each other, therefore, in light of B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and other cases mentioned above, the impugned First Information Report dated 2.8.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 617 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 506, 313, 376, 377 IPC, Police Station Bisrakh, District Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is ALLOWED .
Order Date :- 5.10.2023/M. Tarik
Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal prosecution can be quashed in view of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.
Whether the First Information Report under Sections 498-A, 376, 377 IPC can be quashed despite non-compoundability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of KeralaApplied¶11
(2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherApplied¶13
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶13
[2008)9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Iftekhar Rijwi and 3 Others
State Of U.P. and 3 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
