Amir Masood & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1389 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 31
 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 3174 of 2020
 
Applicant :- Amir Masood & Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan,R.A. Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Imran Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. and Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2.

2. The present petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing chargesheet dated 17.10.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 19.10.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No.13709 of 20199 (State vs. Amir Masood & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 385/2019 under Sections 498-A,323, 504, 506 IP.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance 2018, Police Station Dargah Shareef, District Bahraich.

3. Brief fact of the case is that the informant Smt. Zufishan Mahmood (wife of applicant No.1) has lodged an F.I.R. on 01.10.2019 against her husband and other members of in-laws at Police Station Dargah Shareef, District Bahraich under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Acti in Case Crime No. 385 of 2019, stating therein that opposite party No.2 was married with applicant No.1 on 22.11.2018 according to Muslim rites and rituals. In the said marriage, parents, relative and friends of opposite party No.2 have given sufficient dowry as per their status. After the marriage, applicant No.1 and other family members of her in-laws were demanded a Swift Desire car as additional dowry. They have threatened and started torture her and her fetus got aborted due to medicine given by her in-laws. The demand of additional dowry could not be fulfilled, hence, on 20.05.2019, they have ejected opposite party No.2 from her matrimonial home. Again on the request, the applicant carried opposite party No.2 to her matrimonial home on 21.09.2019 and just next day they again tortured, abused and assaulted her and, thereafter, applicant No.1 pronounced Talaq also. Subsequently, applicant No.1 again ejected opposite party No.2 from her matrimonial home without any article.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in fact a domestic dispute arose between husband and wife and present criminal proceeding outcome of aforesaid matrimonial disputes. They have settled their disputes amicably out of the court. The said cases which were pending between the parties have been compromised and they have separated. If the present case is decided in terms of the compromise and chargesheet as well as order are quashed, both the parties (applicant No.1 and opposite party No.2) may lead their life peacefully with their own choice.

5. A case was registered by the police. After investigation police has submitted chargesheet dated 17.10.2019 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, Bahraich.

6. The applicants have filed a petition under section 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. Amir Masood & others Vs. State of U.P. and others with relief to quash the above chargecheet dated 17.10.2019 submitted by police in Case Crime No. 385 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance 2018, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.

7. 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 05.12.2020, 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.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 conceded that the matter between applicant No.1 and opposite party No. 2 has amicably been settled and further parties have no grievance with each other, if, the relief is granted in favour of applicants, he has no objection.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the prayer.

Vide order dated 18.12.2020, compromise filed by the applicant was sent to court concerned for verification in presence of parties to the litigation. The court of Learned A.C.J.M. Bahraich has verified the compromise and submitted its report on 23.12.2020. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted verification order of the court concerned, which is taken on record.

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 Saadatganj, 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 of this Court, the chargecheet dated 17.10.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 385/2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IP.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance 2018, Police Station Dargah Shareef, District Bahraich is hereby quashed. The instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 22.1.2021

Reena