Nijamuddin And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9270 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nijamuddin And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. 2 Others on 28 August, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151696
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9226 of 2021
 
Court No. - 73
 
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record on board.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.2634 of 2012 (State vs. Nijamuddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

3. It is submitted that the instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2021, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 02.08.2021 is quoted herein below :-

"Heard Mr. Mohammad Shahrum Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Riyajuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing of the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar in compromise application dated 20.10.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.2634 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Nijamuddin and others) arising out of Case Crime No.150 of 2011, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. A further prayer has also been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them.

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that as the opp. party no.2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicant is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be dropped.

The counsel for the complainant too expressed his complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the accused-applicant and in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party no.2 has no objection.

If any compromise is filed before trial court concerned, the same shall be verified in presence of both the parties and after its verification by the court concerned, certified copy of compromise along with verification order of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit, by both the parties on or before the next date fixed.

List this case on 04.10.2021 in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench for orders."

4. In compliance of the order dated 02.08.2021, the court below has verified compromise vide order dated 15.03.2024. Certified copy of compromise application and certified copy of compromise verification order dated 15.03.2024 have been filed as Annexure SA-1 and SA-2, respectively, to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.12.2024. As per the compromise verification order dated 15.03.2024, both the parties were appeared before court below for compromise verification and they have been identified by their respective counsels. They have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have entered into a compromise out of their own volition without any duress. Accordingly, compromise application has been verified.

5. 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 criminal 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 grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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.

6. 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, 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 recognizes 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."

7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is finally decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

8. 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 want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court for necessary action.

August 28, 2025

Ashok Kr.