Manzar Ali And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2706 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manzar Ali And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 30 July, 2025

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44182-DB
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 112 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Manzar Ali And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kudesia,Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Vikas Kumar Agrawal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,Rehan Mubassir
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Sri Rehan Mubassir, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 and perused the record.

2. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0757 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since both the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably through mediation, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 and the mediation between the parties has become successful. A copy of the settlement agreement dated 28.05.2025 has been annexed to the writ petition.

4. We have gone through the settlement agreement submitted by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 28.05.2025, from which it is apparent that both the parties have decided to get the marriage dissolved and live separately in future. The amount of alimony towards one time final settlement of all the claims has also been decided and in lieu thereof, three bank drafts of Rs.4,00,000/- each hae been handed over by the first party to the second party. The first party has also returned the Car, registration papers, all the jewelry items and articles given by the family members of the second party and her relatives during the marriage. Parties have also agreed to withdraw all the cases registered against each other and they would have no objection if the competent court decides the cases on the basis of the settlement agreement.

5. Since both the parties to the matrimonial dispute have agreed to the settlement agreement and have signed on the same, this Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice.

6. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by discussing earlier decision, has discussed the principles of ends of justice particularly in contexts with matrimonial dispute. Relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced below:-

"12) The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13) The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

14) There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harassor torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

15) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 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."

8. In case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and others, (2013) 4 SCC 58, Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the law as laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra).

9. In the case of Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2012 CJ (SC) 896, Hon?ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph-9 of the judgement that if the cases are non compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then the such a criminal matter can be quashed on the basis of mutual compromise where the chance of conviction is bleak. Paragraph-9 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced as under:

"9. On going through the factual details, earlier decision, various offences Under Section 320 of the Code and invocation of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said conclusion. In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the Appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos.1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials,relevant details etc., the present Appellant (Accused No. 3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No. 2herein-the Complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power Under Section482 may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the Appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present Appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power Under Section 482 of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable Under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. However, as observed in Shiji (supra), the power Under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law."

10. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another, 2011 CJ (SC) 239 has scrutinized the legal position in case of compromise in criminal cases, in which the dispute was private in nature. In the matter of settlement agreement continuation of proceeding will be sheer abuse of process of law and in this context the technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceeding. Although the power should be used by the Court sparingly.

11. Since, parties of the case i.e. husband and wife have amicably settled their disputes, which arose due to matrimonial relation, in such a situation it will be futile to engage others petitioners in further litigation. After getting relief from legal proceedings the parties may live their life peacefully. In present scenario, the chance of ultimate conviction is also bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceeding against the petitioners. It may be sheer wastage of valuable time to Court also.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 21.12.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0757 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313, 354 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

13. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate this order to the court concerned for its information and necessary compliance.

14. Learned AGA shall communicate this order to the investigating officer.

.

(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

Rao/-