Allahabad High Court
Musarrat Abib Alias Musarrat Habib And 4 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144331
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7704 of 2024
Applicant :- Musarrat Abib Alias Musarrat Habib And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhakar Yadav
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit along with the certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 10.7.2024.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record on board.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the charge sheet no. 614 of 2020 dated 17.11.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 15.12.2020 in Criminal Case No. 2532 of 2020 (State Vs. Musarrat Habib and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 791 of 2019, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 352 and 427 IPC, Police station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.16, Prayagraj on the basis of compromise dated 22.2.2024.
4. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, vide order dated 12.3.2024, has directed the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties and submit a verification report. For ready reference, the order dated 12.3.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 are present.
According to both the counsels, the parties have arrived at a compromise. The copy of the compromise deed is appended at page No.70 of the paper-book.
As the parties want to file their compromise deed before the trial court, they are free to place it before the trial court, if the sections involved are compoundable, the trial court is free to accept/ reject the compromise deed. As the dispute is personal and the compromise between the parties would not affect the society adversely, hence, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their compromise deed.
The trial court is also directed to pass an appropriate order on the compromise deed. Thereafter, the parties are directed to file the order passed by the trial court on the compromise deed filed by the parties before the trial court.
List on 5th of April, 2024 in the additional cause list.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No.2532 of 2020 (State Vs. Musarrat Abib and others) arising out of Case Crime No.791 of 2019, under Sections 147, 504 , 506, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.16, Prayagraj."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 12.3.2024 passed by this Court, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Allahabad has verified the compromise in presence of both the parties vide its order dated 10.7.2024. A copy of the compromise verification order dated 10.7.2024 has been filed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudge between them against each other. To quash the criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :-
"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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 recognises 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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
vinay
