Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Usama And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19873 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohd. Usama And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Bhooshan Tiwari,Shashi Saurabh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Airaj Siddiqui
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Application No.5 of 2023)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The present application supported with an affidavit has been filed for recalling the order dated 03.11.2022.
Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the recall application is sufficient.
The order dated 03.11.2022 is recalled.
The recall application is allowed.
The writ petition is restored to its original number.
(Order on Petition)
This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 31.08.2021 registered as F.I.R. No.0106 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C., Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3, 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.
It is submitted by Sri Shashi Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Mediation between the parties has been successful. A settlement agreement dated 03.11.2022 has been arrived at between the parties which has been duly signed by them.
Sri Mohd Airaj Siddiqui, learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 is not present.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that since the petitioners and respondent no. 4, have compromised the pre-matrimonial dispute, as such respondent no. 4 does not want to press the present case against the petitioners. The respondent no. 4 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the petitioners and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.
In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash the F.I.R. as the dispute being pre-matrimonial in nature has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent no.4.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed, subject to the condition that the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise, which is annexed as A-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
The present petition stands allowed.
(Dr.Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
prateek
