Gulam Fareed and Another v. State of U.P. and Another)

1. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.431 of 2024 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) and the Charge Sheet No.323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Rampur arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, F.I.R. dated 03.07.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No.Ist, Rampur in which applicant no.1 Ghulam Freed has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and applicant no.2 has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Suar, District- Rampur.

3. On 06.11.2024, the following order was passed in Application U/S 482 No.37332 of 2024 (Gulam Fareed and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) :- "1. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. 323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.431 of 2023 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Swar, District-Rampur on the basis of compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. In this regard, an application alongwith compromise deed on behalf of both the parties has been filed before the court below stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said application has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application for verification of the compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

7. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order for compromise verification passed in Application U/S 482 No.37332 of 2024 (Gulam Fareed and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), the concerned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur has verified the compromise vide order dated 06.12.2024. The certified copy of the aforesaid order is annexed on page no.23B of the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. As Farahnaj i.e. opposite party no.2 has already appeared before the court concerned and her statement has been recorded, therefore, without issuing notice to the opposite party no2, the present application is being decided.

8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.431 of 2024 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) and the Charge Sheet No.323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Rampur arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, F.I.R. dated 03.07.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No.Ist, Rampur in which applicant no.1 Ghulam Freed has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and applicant no.2 has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Suar, District- Rampur, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.

14. It is always open to the parties to approach this Court in case compromise has been done by playing fraud. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

1. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.431 of 2024 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) and the Charge Sheet No.323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Rampur arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, F.I.R. dated 03.07.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No.Ist, Rampur in which applicant no.1 Ghulam Freed has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and applicant no.2 has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Suar, District- Rampur.

3. On 06.11.2024, the following order was passed in Application U/S 482 No.37332 of 2024 (Gulam Fareed and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) :- "1. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No. 323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.431 of 2023 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Swar, District-Rampur on the basis of compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. In this regard, an application alongwith compromise deed on behalf of both the parties has been filed before the court below stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said application has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application for verification of the compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

7. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order for compromise verification passed in Application U/S 482 No.37332 of 2024 (Gulam Fareed and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another), the concerned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur has verified the compromise vide order dated 06.12.2024. The certified copy of the aforesaid order is annexed on page no.23B of the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State also accepts that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. As Farahnaj i.e. opposite party no.2 has already appeared before the court concerned and her statement has been recorded, therefore, without issuing notice to the opposite party no2, the present application is being decided.

8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

9. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.431 of 2024 (State vs. Gulam Fareed) and the Charge Sheet No.323 of 2023 dated 25.10.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Rampur arising out of Case Crime No.242 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, F.I.R. dated 03.07.2023, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No.Ist, Rampur in which applicant no.1 Ghulam Freed has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights to Marriage) Act, 2019 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and applicant no.2 has summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Suar, District- Rampur, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith.

14. It is always open to the parties to approach this Court in case compromise has been done by playing fraud. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Kalp Nath Singh