Allowed

Zeeshan Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024A482/10711/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 BNSS (formerly CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held that given the amicable settlement, the victim's consent, and the absence of objection to the compromise, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No.34 of 2024, State Vs. Shakeel Ansari and others, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC are quashed.

Zeeshan Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home)… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82363

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10711 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Zeeshan Shekh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwanul Haque Ansari

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and Sri Rizwanul Haque Ansari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.34 of 2024, State Vs. Shakeel Ansari and others, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.34 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Judicial magistrate, ATS, Lucknow.

¶9

In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 02.12.2024, victim/complainant and the applicant are present, who have been identified by their respective counsels. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has also filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶10

On 02.12.2024, this Court had passed a detailed order, which reads as under:-

¶11

"1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Rizwanul Haque Ansari, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2/complainant/victim is taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant/victim as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶13

3. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No. 34/2024 (State vs Shakeel Ansari and others) pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, ATS, Lucknow, under section-376/323/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station- Saadatganj, DistrictLucknow arising out of charge-sheet no.01/2024, dated 22.0.42024 in pursuance to the F.I.R No. 34/2024 U/s-376/323/504/506 I.P.C., Police

¶14

Station- Saadatganj, District- Lucknow as well as summoning order dated 14.05.2024 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is cousin of Amir Ansari who was in relation with the respondent no.2, as they were willing to enter into marriage, but the family members were not agreeing to the wish, as a result, FIR of case in question was lodged. He further submits that Amir Ansari as well as respondent no.2 has already been entered into the marriage and they are enjoying their matrimonial life. He further submits that in the case of Amir, proceeding has already been quashed by this court vide order dated 23.10.2024 in Application U/S 9311 of 2024. In such circumstances, the prosecution in question would be futile one, therefore, the same is also liable to be quashed.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant/victim has also supported the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted victim is enjoying her matrimonial life and victim has no objection, in case, the proceeding against the applicants are dropped.

¶17

6. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant but he does not dispute this fact that the marriage of victim has already been solemnized with Amir Ansari, cousin of applicant.

¶18

7. List this case on 10.12.2024 at 11:30 AM.

¶19

8. In the meantime, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant may file counter affidavit.

¶20

9. On the next date, applicant as well as complainant/victim shall appear in person before this Court."

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a distant relative of opposite party no.2. He informs that proceedings in respect of co-accused Amir Ansari and others have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 23.102.204 passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.9311 of 2024. He also submits that case of the applicant is at par with the case of coaccused. He further submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise, which reduced in writing on 11.11.2024. Therefore, submission is that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶22

Opposite party no.2, who is present today, says that she has no objection in case the proceedings against the applicant are quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶23

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Supreme Court:

¶24

i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another,

¶25

(2003)4 SCC 675;

¶26

ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677;

¶27

iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1;

¶28

iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303;

¶29

v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and

¶30

vi. State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296

¶31

In the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and noncompoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Supreme Court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.

¶32

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:

¶33

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;

¶34

16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶35

16.2. 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

¶36

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.

¶37

16.3. 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;

¶38

16.4. 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;

¶39

16.5. 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;

¶40

16.6. 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;

¶41

16.7. 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;

¶42

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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;

¶43

16.9. 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

¶44

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

¶45

Learned counsel for the applicant by placing reliance upon a judgement of the Hon'be Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another , (2022) 15 SCC 44 submits that even in the heinous offence like Section 376 IPC, the Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings on

¶46

the basis of amicable settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties and on the consent which was given by the victim/complainant voluntarily and without any coercion and duress for putting an end to proceedings in order to live in peace. He further submits that in similar situation, this Court in the case of Bahori Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC Online All 4596 has quashed the proceedings under Section 376 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶47

Considering the fact that compromise between the parties has been entered into, which is on record; both the parties being present here; counsel for opposite party no.2 being present and having no objection to this compromise as well as looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein-above as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.

¶48

Accordingly, application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No.34 of 2024, State Vs. Shakeel Ansari and others, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.34 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Saadatganj, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Judicial magistrate, ATS, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶49

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶50

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Rao/-

¶51

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Zeeshan Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeeshan Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Virendra Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Akash Sharma @ Akash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anurag Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anurag Mishra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Raju Rawat and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another