Allowed

Faiz Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2021CRMP/65/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed an FIR involving dowry harassment and harassment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowing quashing of non-compoundable offences. The Court found that parties had reached an amicable settlement, making further criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 405/2019 registered for Section 452, 498-A, 294, 506(B), 34 IPC quashed in the interest of justice.

Faiz Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 65 of 2020

¶5

Faiz Ahmed S/o Shakil Ahmed Aged About 27 Years Resident Of S.P. Motor Parts , Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Shakil Ahmed (Father In Law) S/o Late Kamaal Solanki Aged About 52 Years Resident Of S.P. Motor Parts , Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Shabnam Parveen(Mother In Law) W/o Shaqeel Ahmed Aged About 46 Years Resident Of S.P. Motor Parts , Near Anand Talkies, Balve Market Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Riyaz Ahmed S/o Late Sheikh Maqbul Aged About 44 Years Resident Of R.N. - 227, Hudco, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Mahammed Shahid S/o Late Hazi Abdul Hussain Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Shiv Chowk , Kududand , Bilaspur , Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners : Shri Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate For State : Shri Rakesh Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.2: Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶16

22.06.2021

¶17

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR No. 405/2019 dated 23.06.2019 registered at Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur for committing offence under Section 452, 498-A, 294, 506(B), 34 IPC on account of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶18

As per the complaint made by respondent No. 2 who is father of wife of petitioner No. 1, it was contended that at the time of marriage of his daughter, petitioner No. 1 demanded Rs. 6 Lakhs

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

as dowry as well as gold and silver ornaments. It was further contented by the complainant in his compliant that after three months of the marriage, petitioner No. 3 who is mother- in-law, and petitioner No. 2 who is father-in-law of his daughter started torturing his daughter on demand of dowry. Further the contention of the respondent No. 2 is that on 7.09.2018, petitioners No. 2 and 3 called him and asked to take his daughter otherwise they will torture her and she will not be allowed to stay in her house unless he pays Rs. 10 Lakhs. On the basis of complaint made by the respondent No. 2, FIR has been registered against the Petitioners at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur on 21.06.2019.

¶21

It has been contended by the petitioners that petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court bearing WPCR No. 507 /2019 against registration of FIR against them and this Court has dismissed the petition on 19.07.2019. Thereafter, writ appeal No. 426/2019 was filed before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, Hon'ble Division Bench considered the submissions, materials on record and dismissed the appeal on 24.10.2019.

¶22

During the pendency of the investigation, petitioners and respondent No. 2 settled their grievances and settlement agreement dated 20.11.2019 was recorded before the Mediator, District Court, Bilaspur. The relevant clauses of the agreement are extracted below:

¶23

“ 1. आववेदक शश्री ममोह० शशाहहद दशारशा प्रथम अपर सत्र न्यशायशाधश्रीश, हबिलशासपपुर कवे न्यशायशालय मम प्रस्तपुत एम०जवे०सश्री० क्रमशामांक-37/19, अमांतररत धशारशा 439 (2) द०प्र०समां० कवे आववेदन कमो उभयपक्ष स्ववेच्छयशा समझझौतशा कवे आधशार पर उक न्यशायशालय सवे वशापस लवेरशा ।

¶24

आववेहदकशा शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजजूम एवमां उनकवे पहत शश्री फफैज अहमद दशारशा स्ववेच्छयशा सहमहत कवे आधशार पर मपुसस्लम रश्रीहत-ररवशाज अनपुसशार हववशाह हवच्छवेद उपरशामांत पपृथक-पपृथक रहनशा स्वश्रीकशार हकयवे ।

¶25

उक आधशार पर शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजम कमो उनककी हववशाह कवे दझौरशान उसकवे हपतशा एवमां पररवशार वशाललों सवे प्रशाप्त सश्रीधन कमो प्रकरण मम पवेश सजूचश्री अनपुसशार सश्रीधन कमो अनशाववेदकरण, आववेहदकशा कमो वशापस करमरवे । यहद आववेहदकशा कवे हववशाह कवे समय उसवे उपशाहर मम प्रशाप्त सश्रीधन सशामशान अनशाववेदकरण कवे पशास उपलब्ध न हमो यशा उपयमोर कवे दझौरशान नष्ट हमो रयशा हमो तमो उसकवे एवज मम अनशाववेदकरण, शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

अमांजजूम कमो चवेक कवे मशाध्यम सवे 2,00,000/- (दमो लशाख रूपयवे) अदशा करमरवे । 4. आववेहदकशा शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजजूम कवे हववशाह मम उसकवे हपतशा दशारशा उपहशार स्वरूप दश्री रयश्री रशाहश 5,00,00/- (पशामांच लशाख रूपयवे) अथशारतत् पजूणर वहणत रशाहश कवे अनपुसशार कपुल रशाहश 7,00,000/-(सशात लशाख रूपयवे) हशफशा अमांजपुम कवे पहत एवमां शवेष अनशाववेदकरण दशारशा आववेहदकशा शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजजूम कमो अदशा करमरवे । मध्यस्थतशा कवे दझौरशान आववेदक शश्री शककील अहमद दशारशा पमांजशाबि एण्ड ससन्ध बिबक, शशाखशा कवे०कवे० रमोड, रशायपपुर कशा चवेक क्रमशामांक-000548, हदनशामांहकत 14/11/2019, रशाहश 7,00,000/- (सशात लशाख रूपयवे मशात्र) कशा आववेहदकशा शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजपुम कवे नशाम पर जशारश्री चवेक, जमो हक वतरमशानमम हबिरशादरश्री कवे मपुसखयशा हशाजश्री सलश्रीम चझौहशान, दपुरर कमो हदयशा रयशा ।

¶28

अनशाववेदक फफैज अहमद, परवश्रीन, शककील एवमां ररयशाज अहमद कवे हवरूद्घ आरक्षश्री कवेन्द्र ससहवल लशाईन, हबिलशासपपुर मम दजर अपरशाध क्रमशामांक-405/19, अमांतररत धशारशा 452, 498 ए, 294, 506 बिश्री, सहपहठित धशारशा 34 भशा०द०हव० एवमां धशारशा 4 मपुसस्लम महहलशाओमां कशा समांरक्षण असधहनयम मम शश्रीमतश्री हशफशा अमांजजूम एवमां उसकवे हपतशा शश्री ममोहम्मद शशाहहद दशारशा स्ववेच्छयशा समझझौतवे कवे आधशार पर प्रकरण कशा हनरशाकरण करशानवे मम हर सम्भव मदद करमरवे । "

¶29

Before filing of the petition, settlement agreement dated 22.11.2019 has been arrived at and on the basis of the settlement petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR. The respondent No. 2 has also filed reply in which he has mentioned that in the changed circumstances, respondent No. 2 original complainant and his daughter namely Shifa Anjum do not want to continue with the aforesaid criminal case lodged at the Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur.

¶30

This Court vide its order dated 14.01.2021 has directed the petitioners and respondent No. 2 to appear before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for recording of their statements on 19^th January, 2021. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the petitioners entered their appearance and stated in unequivocal terms that now there is no dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2. On account of settlement agreement respondent No. 2 is not willing to continue with the criminal proceedings and prayed for quashment of the FIR No. 405/2019.

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & others¹ , has summarized the law for quashing of FIR, the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:-

¶33

“15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable 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;

¶34

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable 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.”

¶35

Though the offence under Section 498A is not compoundable but this can be quashed with the leave of this Court. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa² , wherein the Supreme Court has quashed the proceeding initiated under Section 498-A of I.P.C. on the count that husband and wife have mutually settled their dispute.

¶36

In view of the said legal position, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the parties have amicably settled dispute between them and they do not want to continue with the criminal case, this court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material for this court to form an opinion to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners. Further, this court is of the opinion that the continuation of criminal proceeding will be nothing, but to an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, FIR bearing registration No. 405/2019 registered against the petitioners at Police Station-

¶37

1 (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶38

2 (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) for committing offence punishable under Sections 452, 498-A, 294, 506 (B), 34 of I.P.C., deserve to be and are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

¶41

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶42

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for necessary compliance and closure of the proceedings.

¶43

Sd-

¶44

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶45

Judge

¶46

kishore

Faiz Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiz Ahmed v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Mitali Sahu @ Fatima Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chetanmani Adil Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durgacharan Mohanty Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Miri Vs Smt. Bharti and Other

Janki Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh