Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Firoz Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21217
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 986 of 2024
Revisionist :- Mohammad Firoz Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,Sayed Mehdi Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Ms. Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Priya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Garuav Kumr, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Now U/S 438/442 of BNSS) has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgement & order dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, Pratapgarh dismissing the Crl. Appeal No. 22/2024 filed by the revisionist as well as impugned judgment & order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Kunda Prtapgarh, partly allowing the interim maintenance application filed by O.P. No. 2 in Crl. Case No. 155/2021 U/s 23 protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Rubi Bano Vs. Firoz Ahmad.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 & 11.09.2024 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 10.12.2024. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 30.01.2023 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.
4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:-
"A) That parties agree that their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2019, thereafter they started living separately. Now divorce has taken between the parties on 12.10.2020.
B) That parties have agreed that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) shall be paid by the First Party to the Second Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of second party against first party including the claim of permanent alimony and mehar.
C) That the entire amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) has been paid by the First Party to the Second Party today i.e. 10.12.2024 vide Demand Draft No. 360471 dated 02.12.2024 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Branch - LalGopalGanj-232105, in the name of Ruby Bano. The Second Party acknowledges receipt of the demand Draft.
D) That the parties have agreed to withdraw/notpress/not to pursue the cases filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are mentioned hereunder:-
(a) Crl. Case No. 155/2021, Crl. Appeal NO. 22/2024 (Rubi Bano Vs. firoz Ahmad) U/S 23 D. V. Act pending before ACJM, Kunda, Pratapgarh.
(b) Crime No. 138 of 2020 u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/3 DP act P.S. Mahila Thana Distt. Prayagraj.
(c) Crime No. 38/2020 u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/3 DP act P.S. Hathigawan, Distt. Pratapgarh.
E) That the second Party has agreed that she shall not have any objection if the Hon'ble court decides the criminal revision NO. 986 of 2024 (Mohammad Firoz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Another) arising out of Crl. Case NO. 155/2021, Crl. Appeal NO. 22/2024 (Rubi Bano Vs. Firoz Ahmad) U/S 23 D.V. Act pending before ACJM, Kunda, Pratapgarh n terms of this settlement agreement.
F) In addition to above mentioned case, if any other case(s) is pending before the parties, both the parties shall not have ny objection if the case(s) is disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in terms of this Settlement Agreement.
G) That it is also agreed between the parties that henceforth no case will be instituted by them against each other or any of their respective family members in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings in respect of any dispute arising out of their marriage or any matter incidental thereto.
H) That both the parteis shall be boudn tby the terms and conditions of this Settlement in strict sense. In case of any default, the party committing the default shall be liable for playing fraud with the Corut hence for contempt of the Court.
7. By Signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to the matter involved in CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 986 of 2024 (Mohammad Firoz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Another ) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation /mediation."
5. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-
"15.1. 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 the 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"
9. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.
10. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicants, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.
11. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, are hereby set aside.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the present revision is allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 15.4.2025
Ravi/
