[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Hasan Parwej And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 15 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25812
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3003 of 2026
Hasan Parwej And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Alishah Faruqi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Kumat Tripathi, the learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order dated 18.01.2021 along with entire proceedings of Case No.12334 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.567 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 25.09.2019 stating that she got married to the applicant no.1 Hasan Parvez on 02.12.2013. He used to reside in Dubai. She was turned out of her matrimonial home for demanding dowry. In the year 2015 she got appointed as a Teacher in Primary School. For some time her husband returned to India and stayed with her, but the accused persons intermittently ill-treated her. In June, 2018 the opposite party no.2 got transferred to District Unnao, where she was residing in a rented accommodation and she was ill-treated there also.
4. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons on 19.08.2020 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the trial court took cognizance of the offence on 18.01.2021. On 06.04.2026 the parties have entered into a compromise, wherein it is stated that the opposite party no.2 has filed Case No.3234of 2023 under Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in which a compromise has been filed on 09.02.2026. She has also filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which would be disposed off upon receiving a demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner no.1. She has stated that she has no grievance against the petitioners and she does not want to prosecute the accused persons on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by her.
5. The aforesaid facts make out that the F.I.R. had been lodged because of a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has been resolved amicably.
6. In Gian Singh v. Sate of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice or to prevent to abuse the process of any Court, having regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot befittingly quashed on the basis compromise as these are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society.
7. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Courts have inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in the cases which are not compoundable where the parties have settled the matter. The Supreme Court has held as follows: -
"29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
8. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid down the following principles: -
"16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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.
16.2. 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.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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.
16.4. 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.
16.5. 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.
16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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.
16.7. 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.
16.8. 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.
16.9. 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
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
9. The guiding factors in these cases would be to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the process of any court. The heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offices like murder, rape, dacoity etc., are not private in nature and they have a serious impact on the society. Cases involving such offences cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. On the other hand, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among them.
10. The present case was the outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband. The offences are essentially and predominantly private in nature, are not heinous and do not have a serious impact on society. It has also to be seen that after the parties have entered into a settlement the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would only result in persecution of the petitioners.
11. In these circumstances, the quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise appears to be proper and expedient in the interest of justice. However, it is necessary that the genuineness of the compromise be verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off by directing the petitioners to file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for verification of the genuineness of the compromise. For this purpose, the original compromise annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners after retaining its photocopy on record. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall verify the genuineness of the compromise and shall prepare a report in this regard expeditiously. The petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh petition for quashing of the criminal proceedings, along with the verification report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
April 15, 2026
Ram.
