Firoz Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 510 of 2024

¶5

Firoz Khan, S/o Gulmeer Khan, aged about 43 years, R/o:- 277 Patel Colony Ward No. 3, Dalli Rajhara, District – Balod Chhattisgarh (as per FIR)

¶6

Gulmeer Khan, S/o Late Chand Khan, aged about 64 years, R/o:277 Patel Colony, Ward No. 3, Dalli Rajhara, District – Balod Chhattisgarh (as per FIR)

¶7

Kaneej Begaum, W/o Gulmeer Khan, aged about 61 years, R/o; - 277 Patel Colony, Ward No. 3, Dalli Rajhara, District – Balod Chhattisgarh (as per FIR)

¶8

Afroz Khan, S/o Gulmeer Khan, aged about 39 years, R/o: -277 Patel Colony, Ward No. 3, Dalli Rajhara, District – Balod Chhattisgarh (as per FIR)

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Sarfraaz Yajda, W/o Firoz Khan, aged about 36 years, R/o Gali No. 5, Side-A, Azad Chowk, Kasaridih, Tehsil & District;- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶15

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

10-04-2024

¶18

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶19

The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the

¶20

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth “Code”) for quashing of FIR

¶21

2

¶22

No. 004/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg (C.G.) as well as charge-sheet No. 14/2016, dated 13.5.2016 and consequential Criminal Case No. RCC/4001/2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶23

Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 – Firoz Khan on 25.12.2013 as per Muslim Rites and Rituals. After few days of marriage, petitioners started torturing complainant / respondent No. 2 mentally and physically in connection with demand of dowry, and due to such humiliation and frustration, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home and residing with her parental house and lodged FIR against the petitioners for the offence of dowry harrassment, which was registered as Crime No. 0004/2016 at police Station Mahila Thana, Durg. After usual investigation, charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been filed, which is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District Durg as Criminal Case No. Criminal Case No. RCC/4001/2016 .

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent No. 3/complaisant would submit that during pendency of this petition, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, therefore, FIR No. 0004/2016 registered at police Station Mahila Thana, Durg and consequent charge sheet filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. RCC/4001/2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and

¶25

3

¶26

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 be quashed on the strength of settlement arrived at between the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant have recorded their statements before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) in pursuance of the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by this Court.

¶27

Learned State Counsel would submit that in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant, appropriate order may be passed.

¶28

Learned counsel for complainant / respondent No. 2 has extended his support to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 21.03.2024 statements of petitioners and respondent No. 3 have been recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) in which they have stated that matter has been settled between them amicably. Respondent No. 2/wife has also deposed in her statement that due to settlement arrived at between them, she does not want any action to be taken in the FIR No. 0004/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Durg, District Durg against the petitioners and in Criminal Case No. RCC/4001/2016, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, arising out of aforesaid FIR. She has further stated that she has voluntarily made settlement and same has been executed without fear, pressure or temptation.

¶31

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and

¶32

4

¶33

others -v- Babita Raghuvanshi and another1 has observed that, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. However, exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist.

¶34

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gian Singh – v- State of Punjab2 , State of M.P. -v- Laxmi Narayan and ors.3 and K. Srinivas Rao – v- D.A. Deepa4 has dealt with the matter and has expressed the need of allowing the compromise between the parties even in non-compoundable offences in matrimonial matters, however, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶35

In the instant case, though offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are non-compoundable, but, considering the fact that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the parties, following the dictum given by Apex Court, the offences can be quashed with the leave of this Court.

¶36

1 (2013) 4 SCC 58

¶37

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶38

3 (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶39

4 (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶40

5

¶41

In view of the the above legal proposition, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute between them and they doe not want to continue with the criminal case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court to form an opinion to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Further, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings will be nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶42

Consequently, FIR bearing Crime No. 0004/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners and consequent Criminal Case No. RCC/4001/2016, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, deserves to be and are hereby quashed.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶45

Amit/-

¶46

6

Firoz Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Vs Hemant Patel

Radhika Prasad Vs Dinesh Kumar

Chetan Prasad Dewangan Vs Ramlal Dewangan

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Vs Union of India

Khileshwar Sinha @ Jeetu Sinha Vs Rehana Khan @ Aasu Arya