Allahabad High Court
Riyaz Ahmad And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Nand Prabha Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31976 of 2022
Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogeshwar Rai,Ravi Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aniruddh Tiwari
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Through the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants No. 1 to 3 seek to challenge the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2019 for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 45 of 2020 (State Vs. Riyaz Ahmad and Others) in Case Crime No. 263 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 427 and 452 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh against applicant No. 1 and also the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2019 against the applicants No. 2 and 3 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Aligarh on the basis of the compromise between the parties dated 18.02.2020.
During the pendency of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 had submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and they have entered into a compromise which is part compromise dated 18.02.2020 which was brought on record as Annexure No. '3' to the affidavit filed in support of the application. Accordingly, the said compromise document was verified by the Trial Court and a verification report dated 17.01.2023 given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh is part of the record. As it is apparent from the compromise deed dated 08.02.2020, Riyaz Ahmad/ the applicant No. 1 has agreed to rejoin with his matrimonial family i.e. wife 'Nayeema Umar' and son 'Ayan Ahmad', aged about 12 years and want to live together. Both the parties have agreed to withdraw all the criminal proceedings and other matrimonial proceedings pending amongst them in various Courts.
In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675), it has been held that where there was almost no chance of conviction, it would be improper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. 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 Cr.P.C. As the applicant No. 1 is the husband and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 being the relative of the husband and on the other hand the informant/opposite party No. 2 being the wife of Riyaz Ahmad have willingly agreed to settle the matrimonial dispute by filing a compromise deed dated 18.02.2020, in such eventuality, there would be almost no chance of conviction.
Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC Page 303) has laid down certain guidelines/ categories of cases where proceedings can be quashed in non-compoundable offences in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.
From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising power by the Court to quash the entire proceedings, as well as the charge-sheet. The entire proceedings of Case No. 45 of 2020 (State Vs. Riyaj Ahmad and Others) in Case Crime No. 263 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 427 and 452 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines as well as the charge-sheets dated 24.09.2019 and 28.09.2019 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra are hereby quashed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023
Shivani
