High Court

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed this to Hon'ble quash Court may the charge graciously be sheet dated that pleased 14.10.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.10.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Buddh Nagar, summoning the applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC inasmuch as summoning the applicant no.2 and 3 for offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC as well as entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise compromise dated 02.01.2024 entered into between the parties which was entered into settlement agreement dated 07.01.2024 between (Majid Va Smt. Nazma) before Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation centre, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar. Court No.2, It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2024 entered into between the parties which was entered into settlement agreement dated 07.01.2024 between (Majid Vs Smt. Nazma) before Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation centre, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.с., Court No.2, Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court. Otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4 Record shows that applicants earlier approached this Court by means of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. 34525 of 2023 (Majid and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the aforesaid application, an order dated 9.11.2023 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below: "1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have compromised in the mediation. The mediation report is also available on record. It is contended that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: below:- quoted herein i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and the mediation report is on record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is hereby quashed. "

5. After aforementioned order was passed, the parties settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into. Thereafter a compromise deed dated, 2.1.2024 was drawn. Photocopy of the same is on record at page 60 of the paper book.

6. In compliance of above order dated 9.11.2023, parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre High Court, Allahabad. Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise settlement dated 7.1.2024. For ready refernece, the settlement agreement is extracted herein below: ""This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 07.01.2024, between Majid (Applicant No.1- Husband) and Smt. Najma (O.P. No.2-Wife). WHEREAS

1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/s 482 No. 34525 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

2. The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed by bench of Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

3. The parties agreed that Mr. S.R. Verma and Mr. S.K. Mehrona, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators, in the Mediation Case No.0080/2024, 4 Several Joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Concillation Mediation on 07.01.2024 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediators/Conciliators voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences. The marriage of Majid (Applicant No.1-Husband) and Smt. Najma (O.P. No.2-Wife) was solemnized on 12.06.2020. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties have been living separately since 04.04.2021. 6 The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrive at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.

7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- (a) That the parties have murually agreed to resolve their matrimonial dispute by taking divorce and in this regard they have prepared an notaroized 'Apsi Samjhantanama' dated 02.01.2024 and the certified copy of the aforesaid samjhautanama is being annexed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) which includes the amount of Iddat, Muddat, maintenance and other financial claims of wife and Rs.3,000/- towards Mehar of the wife. (c) That on 02.01.2024, the husband has already paid an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh three thousand only) to the wife outside the court and for which she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (d) That today i.e. 07.01.2024, the husband handed over a demand draft bearing No.943175 dated 01.01.2024 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Only) drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Naz under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 oma (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. (f) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse. 8-By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/s 482 No. 34525 of 2023 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto througnd Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 oh the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Ultimately, above mentioned application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 34525 of 2023 (Majid and 4 Others) came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.1.2024. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have compromised in the mediation. The mediation report is also available on record. It is contended that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the basis of settlement/compromise. the proceeding on Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention ofnd Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 o 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; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and the mediation report is on record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge- sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is hereby quashed."

7. It is apposite to mentioned here that following litigation is going on between the parties. (i) Case Crime No.06 of 2023, under Section 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 Protection of Muslim Women Act & 3/4 of D.P. Act. (ii) Complaint Case No. 368 of 2021, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Nazam Vs. Majid) (iii) Complaint Case No.437/2021, U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Majid) Act (Nazma Vs. (iv) Complaint Case No.852/2022, U/s 406 IPC (Nazma Vs. Majid) (v) Case Crime No. 911 of 2023, under section 323, 506 IPC (State Vs. Anwar and Others) (vi) Case Crime No. 401 of 2021 under section 376, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC (State VS. Anwar and Others)

8. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that subsequent to the aforesaid compromise/settelement arrived at by the parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, vide order dated 16.2.2024, terminated the proceedings of criminal case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under sections 498A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 of the paper book.

9. Similarly, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat vide order dated 3.1.2024 compounded the offences in Complaint Case No. 852 of 2022 (Najma Vs. Majid) under section 406 IPC, P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat. The same is on record at page 75 of the paper book.

10. The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 437 of 2021 (Smt Najma Vs. Majid and Others) under section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat were terminated by Court below in the light of the compromise as well as the settlement agreement arrived by the parties.The copy of the above order is on record at page 70 of the paper book.

11. The Principal judge, Family Court Baghpat, vide order dated 3.1.2024 terminated the proceedings of Case No. 368 of 2021 (Smt. Nazma Vs. Majid) under section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat in view of the compromise entered into by the parties and also the settlement agreement drawn with the consent of the parties at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad. The same is evident from the order occurring at page 82 of the paper book.

12. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that compromise entered into by the parties as well as the settlement arrived at by the parties has to be treated as an effective compromise/settlement so as to bring to an end all disputes between the parties. The continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case pending against appplicant before Court below cannot be treated as an exception to the compromise entered into by the parties or the settlement arrived at by the parties. To buttress his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. According to the learned A.G.A. offence complained of is not private in nature but a crime against society. Applicants are guilty of committing an offence punishable under section 376 IPC. The criminality committed by accused appicants is not only illegal but also immoral. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. Learned A.G.A. has also referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 wherein the Apex Court has observed that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

14. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

15. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

16. Issue notice to first informant/opposite party-2.

17. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.

18. List for admission on 04.03.2025.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of present application, as noted herein above, and also the fact that except for the present case the proceedings of all other criminal cases pending against applicant have been terminated by the respective Court in view of the compromise entered into by the parites/the settlement agreeement arrived at by the parties, therefore, as an interim measure, it is, hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar, Court No.2, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Imtiyaz

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed this to Hon'ble quash Court may the charge graciously be sheet dated that pleased 14.10.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.10.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Gautam Buddh Nagar, summoning the applicant no.1 for the offence punishable under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC inasmuch as summoning the applicant no.2 and 3 for offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC as well as entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise compromise dated 02.01.2024 entered into between the parties which was entered into settlement agreement dated 07.01.2024 between (Majid Va Smt. Nazma) before Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation centre, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar. Court No.2, It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2024 entered into between the parties which was entered into settlement agreement dated 07.01.2024 between (Majid Vs Smt. Nazma) before Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation centre, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.с., Court No.2, Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court. Otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4 Record shows that applicants earlier approached this Court by means of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. 34525 of 2023 (Majid and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the aforesaid application, an order dated 9.11.2023 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below: "1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have compromised in the mediation. The mediation report is also available on record. It is contended that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: below:- quoted herein i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and the mediation report is on record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is hereby quashed. "

5. After aforementioned order was passed, the parties settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into. Thereafter a compromise deed dated, 2.1.2024 was drawn. Photocopy of the same is on record at page 60 of the paper book.

6. In compliance of above order dated 9.11.2023, parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre High Court, Allahabad. Ultimately, the parties entered into a compromise settlement dated 7.1.2024. For ready refernece, the settlement agreement is extracted herein below: ""This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 07.01.2024, between Majid (Applicant No.1- Husband) and Smt. Najma (O.P. No.2-Wife). WHEREAS

1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/s 482 No. 34525 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

2. The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed by bench of Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

3. The parties agreed that Mr. S.R. Verma and Mr. S.K. Mehrona, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators, in the Mediation Case No.0080/2024, 4 Several Joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Concillation Mediation on 07.01.2024 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediators/Conciliators voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences. The marriage of Majid (Applicant No.1-Husband) and Smt. Najma (O.P. No.2-Wife) was solemnized on 12.06.2020. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties have been living separately since 04.04.2021. 6 The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrive at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.

7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- (a) That the parties have murually agreed to resolve their matrimonial dispute by taking divorce and in this regard they have prepared an notaroized 'Apsi Samjhantanama' dated 02.01.2024 and the certified copy of the aforesaid samjhautanama is being annexed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) which includes the amount of Iddat, Muddat, maintenance and other financial claims of wife and Rs.3,000/- towards Mehar of the wife. (c) That on 02.01.2024, the husband has already paid an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh three thousand only) to the wife outside the court and for which she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (d) That today i.e. 07.01.2024, the husband handed over a demand draft bearing No.943175 dated 01.01.2024 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Only) drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Naz under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 oma (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned. (f) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse. 8-By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/s 482 No. 34525 of 2023 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto througnd Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 oh the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Ultimately, above mentioned application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 34525 of 2023 (Majid and 4 Others) came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 25.1.2024. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge-sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have compromised in the mediation. The mediation report is also available on record. It is contended that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the basis of settlement/compromise. the proceeding on Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention ofnd Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 o 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; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute in mediation and the mediation report is on record, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khekara, District Baghpat including charge- sheet dated 18.09.2022 and summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is hereby quashed."

7. It is apposite to mentioned here that following litigation is going on between the parties. (i) Case Crime No.06 of 2023, under Section 498A, 323 IPC & 3/4 Protection of Muslim Women Act & 3/4 of D.P. Act. (ii) Complaint Case No. 368 of 2021, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Nazam Vs. Majid) (iii) Complaint Case No.437/2021, U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Majid) Act (Nazma Vs. (iv) Complaint Case No.852/2022, U/s 406 IPC (Nazma Vs. Majid) (v) Case Crime No. 911 of 2023, under section 323, 506 IPC (State Vs. Anwar and Others) (vi) Case Crime No. 401 of 2021 under section 376, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC (State VS. Anwar and Others)

8. It is then contended by the learned counsel for applicant that subsequent to the aforesaid compromise/settelement arrived at by the parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, vide order dated 16.2.2024, terminated the proceedings of criminal case No. 5249 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under sections 498A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 Muslim Marriage Act and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khekda, District Bagghpat. The said order is on record at page 73 of the paper book.

9. Similarly, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat vide order dated 3.1.2024 compounded the offences in Complaint Case No. 852 of 2022 (Najma Vs. Majid) under section 406 IPC, P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat. The same is on record at page 75 of the paper book.

10. The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 437 of 2021 (Smt Najma Vs. Majid and Others) under section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat were terminated by Court below in the light of the compromise as well as the settlement agreement arrived by the parties.The copy of the above order is on record at page 70 of the paper book.

11. The Principal judge, Family Court Baghpat, vide order dated 3.1.2024 terminated the proceedings of Case No. 368 of 2021 (Smt. Nazma Vs. Majid) under section 125 Cr.P.C. P.S. Khekda, District- Baghpat in view of the compromise entered into by the parties and also the settlement agreement drawn with the consent of the parties at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad. The same is evident from the order occurring at page 82 of the paper book.

12. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that compromise entered into by the parties as well as the settlement arrived at by the parties has to be treated as an effective compromise/settlement so as to bring to an end all disputes between the parties. The continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case pending against appplicant before Court below cannot be treated as an exception to the compromise entered into by the parties or the settlement arrived at by the parties. To buttress his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. According to the learned A.G.A. offence complained of is not private in nature but a crime against society. Applicants are guilty of committing an offence punishable under section 376 IPC. The criminality committed by accused appicants is not only illegal but also immoral. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. Learned A.G.A. has also referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 wherein the Apex Court has observed that there can be no compromise in matters relating to rape and sexual assault As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

14. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

15. Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

16. Issue notice to first informant/opposite party-2.

17. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits on or before the date fixed in the notice.

18. List for admission on 04.03.2025.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of present application, as noted herein above, and also the fact that except for the present case the proceedings of all other criminal cases pending against applicant have been terminated by the respective Court in view of the compromise entered into by the parites/the settlement agreeement arrived at by the parties, therefore, as an interim measure, it is, hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Session Trial No.1089 of 2022 (State Vs. Anwar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2021 under sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar, Court No.2, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Imtiyaz