Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1791 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohammad Asif And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the complainant.
The present writ petition is being preferred for quashing the first information report dated 01.12.2019 in Case Crime no. 272 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Present matter was taken up on 11.2.2020 and this Court has passed following order:-
"Heard Mohd. Aslam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking for quashing of the first information report dated 1.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 272 of 2019, under Section 498-A/323/506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.
Looking to the allegations in the first information report and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem it fit and proper to refer the matter to the Mediation and Reconciliation Center, High Court, Allahabad, in order to give the parties one opportunity to reconcile their dispute.
The petitioner no. 1 herein the husband shall deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of three weeks from today before the Mediation and Reconciliation Center, High Court, Allahabad. On deposits so made, a notice intimating the date fixed before the Mediation Center shall be sent to the respondent no. 3 wife namely Smt. Aleena to facilitate her participation in the mediation process.
On the first day of appearance of wife before the Mediation Center, an amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to her towards travelling expenditures etc.
The Mediation report be submitted within a period of three months from today. List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing or till mediation report is received, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against any of the petitioners.
In case of default in making the deposits within time given above, the interim protection granted above shall automatically stand vacated."
In response thereof, the complainant namely Smt. Aleena d/o Mohd. Sahil Saifi (wife) and Mohd. Asif (husband) are present in the Court. Both the parties are identified and recognized by their respective counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of averment mentioned that the parties have already resolved the dispute and compromise has arrived between the parties and accordingly the compromise deed dated 26.09.2021 has already been executed. The same is already appended alongwith writ petition. In this backdrop, he submits that the first information report is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has given a nod to the said situation. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved and as such the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime no. 272 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, are quashed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Dhirendra/