Allahabad High Court
Niyaz Beg Mirza And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3532 of 2006
Applicant :- Niyaz Beg Mirza And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- V.M. Zaidi,Vatsala
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,H.K. Yadav
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present Criminal Misc. Recall Application along with Delay Condonation Application has been filed by the applicant for recalling the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by this Court in the Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3532 of 2006, whereby the said 482 application was dismissed for the want of prosecution and the interim order in the said application stood vacated.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 8.8.2007, whereby the parties have come to terms and they have buried the disputes and differences after taking a permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- and nuptial knot between the applicant No. 3 and opposite party No. 2 stood dissolved after that compromise.
Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the applicants submits that after the marriage was dissolved with the applicant No. 3, the opposite party No. 2 has got remarried with some other person, and now she is not more interested in contesting the present case. The applicant is now in lurch.
The delay in filing the recall application is hereby condoned.
Cause shown is sufficient to recall the order dated 27.9.2007.
Accordingly, the order dated 27.9.2007 is hereby recalled and the application is restored to its original number.
The recall application No. 71499 of 2013 along with delay condonation application No. 71495 of 2013 are allowed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 28.1.2006 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1593 of 2002 (State vs. Muzammil Beg Mirza and others) under Sections 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sector 39 NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that considering several judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court, the present case is compoundable. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS; 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB; 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR; 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS; 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND; 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases, the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1593 of 2002 (State vs. Muzammil Beg Mirza and others) under Sections 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Sector 39 NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022
Sumaira
