Mukeem Akhtar Urf Tannu @ Syed Tanveer ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 20382 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mukeem Akhtar Urf Tannu @ Syed Tanveer ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2024

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:101194
 
Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18697 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Mukeem Akhtar Urf Tannu @ Syed Tanveer Akhtar And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Asif
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Asif, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Syed Asharaf Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party No.- 2.

2. It transpires that on account of strain relations between the husband and wife this resulted in initiation of several criminal proceedings being Nos.- 1581 of 2007, 417 of 2008 and 6400 of 2010 that earlier out of litigations led to filing of 482 application No.- 13903 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 9954 of 2008. In the said case this Court had referred the matter for mediation. Upon the matter being referred on 29th January, 2019, the parties ultimately reached to a settlement at the mediation centre of Allahabad High Court and following report dated 27th March, 2019 was sent by the Mediator, which is reproduced hereunder:

"(1). Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and Application U/S 482 No. 13903 of 2007 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

(2). The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide, order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.

(3). The parties agreed that Ms. Shobha Srivastava and Mr. Afzal Ahmad, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in Mediation Case No. 837/2019.

(4). Joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/ Mediation on 27.03.2019 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences.

(5). The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator.

(6). The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

a) That the marriage of Sri Mukeem Akhtar alias Tannu (Applicant No. 1 - husband) and Smt. Zahida Khatoon (Sister of O.P. No. 2, wife) was solemnized on 19.04.2003. Out of aforesaid wedlock parties have two sons Sayad Ayan and Sayad Afaan, 14 and 07 years of age respectively.

b) The wife had been living with her parents from 2006 to 2012 due to strain relation with her husband. However the dispute between the husband and wife were resolved in the year 2012 and since they are living as husband and wife with perfect harmony.

c) The cases initiated by the parties were still pending even after there reunion since 2012. Therefore, the same may be disposed off by this Hon'ble Court in view of this Settlement Agreement.

c) That before coming for Mediation parties Sri Mukeem Akhtar alias Tannu (Applicant d No. 1- husband) and Smt. Zahida Khatoon (Sister of O.P. No. 2, wife) have decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife, accordingly they have been living together since December 2012 in perfect harmony forgetting all previous disputes and differences.

e) That it has been agreed between the parties that following cases shall be withdrawn by them by taking appropriate steps-

(i) Criminal case No. 1581/07 u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out case crime no. 1105/2006 PS Kotwali District Gazipur pending in the Court of CJM Gazipur.

(ii) Criminal Case No. 417/2008 arising out case crime no 8250/2007 u/s 313, 315 & 316 I.P.C. PS Kotwali District Gazipur pending in the Court of CJM Gazipur.

(iii) Criminal case no. 6400/2010 arising out of case crime no. 1997/2008 u/s 313, 315, 316 of I.P.C. PS Kotwali District Gazipur pending in the Court of CJM Gazipur.

(7). By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claim against each other with respect to Application U/S 482 No. 13903 of 2007 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 6th December, 2019 on the basis of which Application u/s 482 No.- 13903 of 2007 as well as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 9954 of 2008 were allowed and thus, the criminal cases No.- 1581 of 2007 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act and Criminal case No.- 417 of 2008 arising out case crime no 8250/2007 u/s 313, 315 & 316 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali District Gazipur were quashed.

4. Considering various earlier judgments of Supreme Court especially in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, Supreme Court has laid down broad principle of law for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter of an application filed for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings pursuant to compromise reached between the parties. Vide para 15 the Court has held thus:

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

(Emphasis added)

5. In view of the mediation arrived at between the parties and the parties since are now living together since 2012 the Criminal Case No.- 6400 of 2010 arising out of case crime no. 1997 of 2008 under Sections 313, 315, 316 I.P.C. P.S. - Kotwali District- Gazipur pending in the Court of Civil Judge Judge (S.D.)/ F.T.C., Gazipur is hereby quashed in the light of observation of Supreme Court in paragraph 15.1 (supra).

6. The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 3.6.2024

Atmesh