1. Vakalalatnama filed by Sri Rizwan Ahmad, Advocate appearing on behalf complainant, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for complainant.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the informant Syed Mohd. Musharraf has lodged an F.I.R. on 26.07.2010 at 2:10 p.m. at Police Station Gosainganj, District Sultanpur under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act in case Crime No. 336 of 2010, stating therein that he had married his daughter with applicant No.1, Syed Ahmad Faraz on 31.01.2010 and has given sufficient dowry to his daughter but the family members of applicants were demanding a Pulsar motorcycle, cash Rs.1.5 lacs and one A.C. in dowry. The husband of his daughter, Jeth, Devars, father-in-law were started torturing to his daughter in demand of additional dowry and threatened her that unless the demand of additional dowry will not be fulfilled, she will be treated as made servant with bad quality of life. When her daughter returned to her parental home in Chauthi, she narrated the facts with her father. The complainant assured to his daughter and send her to her matrimonial home. In matrimonial home of daughter, all the family members were started to torture and beat her. Thereafter, when she became pregnant, she informed to her husband and family members of in-laws, they arranged the determination of sex of her unborn child and when they revealed that fetus is baby girl, they became quite angry and badly beaten her and given some medicine for abortion. Resultantly, the daughter of complainant become unconscious. Any how she manage to escape from her matrimonial home and reached at her parental home. In consequence of assault and medication her unborn child was aborted, thereafter, she was under treatment in her parental home for recovery of her bad health. On 24.07.2010, her husband, Jeth and Devars came at her parental home and tried to carry her to matrimonial home forcibly by catching her hair and pushing her in the car. On her alarm, the family members of informant and villagers came and rescued her then the husband and his accompanying persons fled away from the spot.
4. A case was registered by the police. After investigation police has submitted chargesheet No. 45/2011 dated 22.03.2011 against the applicants. The cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate concerned and the trial of the case is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court 32, Lucknow.
5. The applicants have filed a petition under section 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No.2520 of 2020; Syed Faraz Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others with relief to quash the above chargecheet No. 45/2011 dated 22.03.2011 submitted by police in Case Crime No. 336 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act vide trial case No. 1316 of 2012 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court 32, Lucknow.
6. In the proceeding of the case, applicants have submitted that on interference of some respectable persons a deed of compromise has been entered into between the parties. On 16.10.2020, both the parties have settled all the disputes according to terms of compromise and the parties will withdraw all the cases filed in the court against each others, as, there were nine cases pending against each others in difference courts.
7. Considering the matrimonial dispute, the court decided the aforesaid application on 14.12.2020 with the direction to applicants to submit their compromise paper before the court concerned, who will verify the compromise and parties will submit the certified copy of the order. The relevant para of the order is as under:-
?Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.?
8. The applicants have again filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stating that as according to compromise between the parties, the subordinate court has verified the compromise on 19.12.2020. If, the litigation between the parties will continue, no fruitful purpose will be served. Copy of compromise agreement has been filed as annexure 4 and certified copy of order of the concerned court dated 19.12.2020 filed as annexure 5 with this petition.
9. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3 conceded that the matter between applicants and opposite parties No. 2 & 3 has amicably been settled and further parties have no grievance with each other, if, the petition is allowed on the basis of above compromise, opposite parties No.2 &3 will have no objection.
10. The scope and ambit of the power conferred in the High Court rules under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Hon?ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in several cases.
11. In case of Dinesh Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and others; Crl. Misc. Application No. 37471 of 2017 decided on 16.11.2017; the coordinate Bench of this Court has laid down the legal position that civil disputes as well as matrimonial dispute between private parties and criminal matter which have no grave effect, can be quashed on the basis of compromise. The relevant para-7 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
?7.) A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the court's process may be averted. Even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. A criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial dispute has been found to be the proceedings of the same class where the inherent jurisdiction of this court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them. There are many other litigations which may also fall in the same class even though they do not arise out of matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations which do not have grave and deleterious social fall-outs may also be settled between the parties. In such matters also when parties approached the court jointly with the prayer to put an end to the criminal litigations in which they had formerly locked their horns, or if the record or the mediation centre's report indicates a rapprochement in between the parties, the Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power and terminate the pending proceedings. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon to depose in the court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a futile exercise in vain and the precious time of court is attended with nothing except a cruel wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are the offences against the State and the inter-se compromise between the litigants cannot be countenanced with and the court despite the rapprochement arrived at in between the parties, would still not like to terminate the prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes of very grave nature entailing far reaching deleterious ramifications against the society. In those matters, the courts do not encourage either mediation or a compromise through negotiation and even the Apex Court has carved out exceptions and did not approve the quashing of non-compoundable offences regardless of their gravity. The Courts have to be discreet and circumspect and must see whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is indeed serving the ends of justice or to the contrary defeating the same.?
12. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others the Hon?ble Supreme Court by discussing earlier decision has discussed the principles of ends of justice particularly in contexts with matrimonial dispute. Relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced below:-
?12) The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13) The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
14) There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harassor torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
15) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.?
13. In the case of Najmul Hasan and others vs. State of U.P. and others; this Court has observed in paras 15 & 16 that:-
15) Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on 07.05.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No.3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No.3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise.
16) We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the proceedings of the First Information Report dated 14.09.2017, vide Case Crime No.0404 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow, lodged by Smt.Anjum Rizvi-the opposite party No.3.
14. In case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and others; Hon?ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the findings as laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) relevant paras 12 & 13 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"12) In our view, 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, we hold that 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.
13) There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power 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. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.?
15. Since, parties of the present case have amicably settled their disputes which arose due to matrimonial relation in such a situation it will be futile to engage them in further litigation. After getting relief from legal proceedings both the parties may live their life with their own choice. In present scenario the chance of ultimate conviction is also bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceeding against the applicants. It may be sheer wastage of valuable time to Court also.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the chargecheet No. No. 45/2011 dated 22.03.2011 arising out of case Crime No. 336 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bazar Khala, District Lucknow is hereby quashed. The instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Reena/-