Mohd. Asif And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

: Vishwakant Srivastava, Mohammad Aleem, Mohammad Azeem, Rakesh Kumar Verma : G.A., Sabih Ahmed HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicants have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet dated 31.3.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 2.9.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 1677 of 2024, titled State Vs. Asif and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Barabanki and the proceedings arising therefrom. Vide order dated 27.1.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where parties concerned have entered into a compromise and final settlement agreement has been prepared before the Mediation Centre of this Court in presence of the parties concerned. The report of the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that on account of settlement and compromise entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court, all the disputes between them have come to an end. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the terms and conditions of agreement dated 5.8.2025 have been complied with. Lastly, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant impugned summoning order dated 2.9.2024 against the applicants after compromise 2 A482 No. 9651 of 2024 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise, therefore, same be quashed, in the interest of justice. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the relevant portion reads as under :- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 predominatingly civil flavour 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, 3 A482 No. 9651 of 2024 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." Upon analysing the above background, nature of the offences as well as the common stand of the parties relating to compromise whereby they have burried the hatchet, this Court finds that the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in peace, therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the above prosecution, as no meaningful purpose would be served, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Resultantly, present application succeeds and the charge sheet dated 31.3.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 2.9.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 1677 of 2024, titled State Vs. Asif and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Barabanki and the proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. The application is allowed. October 7, 2025 P.S. Parihar (Manoj Bajaj,J.)

: Vishwakant Srivastava, Mohammad Aleem, Mohammad Azeem, Rakesh Kumar Verma : G.A., Sabih Ahmed HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicants have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge sheet dated 31.3.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 2.9.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 1677 of 2024, titled State Vs. Asif and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Barabanki and the proceedings arising therefrom. Vide order dated 27.1.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where parties concerned have entered into a compromise and final settlement agreement has been prepared before the Mediation Centre of this Court in presence of the parties concerned. The report of the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that on account of settlement and compromise entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court, all the disputes between them have come to an end. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the terms and conditions of agreement dated 5.8.2025 have been complied with. Lastly, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant impugned summoning order dated 2.9.2024 against the applicants after compromise 2 A482 No. 9651 of 2024 arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise, therefore, same be quashed, in the interest of justice. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the relevant portion reads as under :- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 predominatingly civil flavour 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, 3 A482 No. 9651 of 2024 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." Upon analysing the above background, nature of the offences as well as the common stand of the parties relating to compromise whereby they have burried the hatchet, this Court finds that the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in peace, therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the above prosecution, as no meaningful purpose would be served, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue. Resultantly, present application succeeds and the charge sheet dated 31.3.2024 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 2.9.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 1677 of 2024, titled State Vs. Asif and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Barabanki and the proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed. The application is allowed. October 7, 2025 P.S. Parihar (Manoj Bajaj,J.)