Allahabad High Court
Intkhab Alam @ Intkab And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123255
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14573 of 2014
Applicant :- Intkhab Alam @ Intkab And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan,Babit Kumar,Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashiyam Nasir
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Ashiyam Nasir, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record.
3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.115 of 2014 (Smt. Suraiya Vs. Intakhab & others), under Section 498A I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha(J. P. Nagar), pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, District Amrohaa (J.P. Nagar).
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 had filed another criminal case against the applicants bearing Criminal Case No.1147 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P.Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha, which was challenged by the applicants by means of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.36920 of 2024, wherein a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2024 had referred the matter for Mediation Centre of this Court. He further submits that the matter was settled between the parties and the Mediation Center has submitted its report dated 02.03.2025 according to which, both the parties have decided to live separately and withdraw all the pending proceedings.
5. It is jointly submitted that as the dispute has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 02.03.2025, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, therefore, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 16.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8510 of 2022 (Anuj Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein it is observed that the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak.
6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
"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 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 favour 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7. Since the dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably vide settlement agreement dated 02.03.2025, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
8. The instant application under Section 482 is allowed and the entire proceedings of of Complaint Case No.115 of 2014 (Smt. Suraiya Vs. Intakhab & others), under Section 498A I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha(J. P. Nagar), pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur, District Amrohaa (J.P. Nagar) are quashed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2025
S.P.
