High Court

"Sri Umesh Chandra Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance for the opp. party No. 2 by filing his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Let the name of Sri Umesh Chandra Yadav, Advocate, be shown in the cause-list as counsel for the opp. party, when the case is next listed. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the records. The applicants Mohd. Amin, Jibaida and Abdul Ali have filed this application with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 31.07.2021, u/s 498A, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before ACJM, Court No. 30, Lucknow as Case No. 2075 / 2022 arising from Case Crime No. 0006 / 2021 dated 04.01.2021, P.S. Taalkatora, District Lucknow. Sri Himanshu Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into compromise before the Family Court on 03.05.2024 and with the other conditions of compromise there is one more condition that the applicant will pay Rs. 5 lac to the opp. party No. 2, out of which Rs. 50,000.00 have already been paid alongwith other items and now Rs. 4.5 lacs remains pending to be paid. The compromise be sent for verification. Sri Amitabh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2 made preliminary objection and submitted that till the entire amount is not paid, the terms of the compromise cannot be verified by the trial court, thus, the applicants be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs before this Court and only thereafter this court may pass such order for verification etc. Learned A.G.A. Sri Om Prakash also made an agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Yadav. This court is also of the view that before verification of deed of compromise, the liabilities of Rs. 4.5 lacs should be paid by the applicants to the opp. party No. 2 Nagma Sheikh Hashmi. If the applicants are in hurry to get the case decided in terms of the compromise, then they would have to pay the remaining amount before taking any order in their favour from this court. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he may be given some time to seek instructions in this regard. List this case on 27.05.2024 enabling the learned counsel for the applicants to seek instructions as to whether his client is ready to pay Rs. 4.5 lacs to the opp. party No. 2 in terms of compromise or not. "

4. The applicant no. 1. i.e. Mohd Amin and respondent no. 2 Ms. Nagma Sheikh Hashmi are present. The applicant has handed over a demand draft of Rs. 4.50 lakhs to respondent no. 2 before this court, which has been accepted by Ms. Nagma Sheikh Hashmi, i.e respondent no. 2, who has been identified by the applicant no. 1 as well as by learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

5. It also appears that in compliance of order of this Court dated 17.05.2024, a Settlement Agreement has entered into between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre has sent its report along with the settlement agreement dated 03.05.2024, which is on the record. to her as per

6. The respondent no. 2, after receiving the draft has made a statement before this Court that the demand draft has been handed over compromise/settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre of the Family court and now she has no grudge/grievance against the applicants and she no more wants to pursue the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2075 of 2022, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 30, Lucknow, arising out of Case Crime no. 0006 of 2021 against the applicant. She has further submitted that she will fulfill all other necessary formalities as she has received the draft of Rs. 4.5 lakhs, as per the settlement agreement between the parties in the Mediation Centre.

7. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement entered into between the parties in the mediation proceedings as mentioned above, the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

8. In view of above, the present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceeding, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the applicant.

9. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 DiVYa

"Sri Umesh Chandra Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance for the opp. party No. 2 by filing his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Let the name of Sri Umesh Chandra Yadav, Advocate, be shown in the cause-list as counsel for the opp. party, when the case is next listed. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the records. The applicants Mohd. Amin, Jibaida and Abdul Ali have filed this application with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 31.07.2021, u/s 498A, 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending before ACJM, Court No. 30, Lucknow as Case No. 2075 / 2022 arising from Case Crime No. 0006 / 2021 dated 04.01.2021, P.S. Taalkatora, District Lucknow. Sri Himanshu Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into compromise before the Family Court on 03.05.2024 and with the other conditions of compromise there is one more condition that the applicant will pay Rs. 5 lac to the opp. party No. 2, out of which Rs. 50,000.00 have already been paid alongwith other items and now Rs. 4.5 lacs remains pending to be paid. The compromise be sent for verification. Sri Amitabh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2 made preliminary objection and submitted that till the entire amount is not paid, the terms of the compromise cannot be verified by the trial court, thus, the applicants be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs before this Court and only thereafter this court may pass such order for verification etc. Learned A.G.A. Sri Om Prakash also made an agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Yadav. This court is also of the view that before verification of deed of compromise, the liabilities of Rs. 4.5 lacs should be paid by the applicants to the opp. party No. 2 Nagma Sheikh Hashmi. If the applicants are in hurry to get the case decided in terms of the compromise, then they would have to pay the remaining amount before taking any order in their favour from this court. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he may be given some time to seek instructions in this regard. List this case on 27.05.2024 enabling the learned counsel for the applicants to seek instructions as to whether his client is ready to pay Rs. 4.5 lacs to the opp. party No. 2 in terms of compromise or not. "

4. The applicant no. 1. i.e. Mohd Amin and respondent no. 2 Ms. Nagma Sheikh Hashmi are present. The applicant has handed over a demand draft of Rs. 4.50 lakhs to respondent no. 2 before this court, which has been accepted by Ms. Nagma Sheikh Hashmi, i.e respondent no. 2, who has been identified by the applicant no. 1 as well as by learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

5. It also appears that in compliance of order of this Court dated 17.05.2024, a Settlement Agreement has entered into between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre has sent its report along with the settlement agreement dated 03.05.2024, which is on the record. to her as per

6. The respondent no. 2, after receiving the draft has made a statement before this Court that the demand draft has been handed over compromise/settlement agreement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre of the Family court and now she has no grudge/grievance against the applicants and she no more wants to pursue the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 2075 of 2022, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 30, Lucknow, arising out of Case Crime no. 0006 of 2021 against the applicant. She has further submitted that she will fulfill all other necessary formalities as she has received the draft of Rs. 4.5 lakhs, as per the settlement agreement between the parties in the Mediation Centre.

7. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement entered into between the parties in the mediation proceedings as mentioned above, the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

8. In view of above, the present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceeding, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the applicant.

9. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 DiVYa