High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167014-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3057 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mohd Shoeb And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abdul Mazeed,Syed Mohammad Farook Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Rashid,Yash Raj Verma
Legal Reasoning
15. Wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein-above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 17. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned first information report dated 16.1.2024, giving rise to Case Crime No. 0013 of 2024, under Sections 498- A, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Right to Marriage) Act., 2019, Police Station Ganganagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj) are quashed. District Utraon, 18. The instant writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 21.10.2024 R
Arguments
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead Smt. Saniya Bano wife of petitioner no. 1 as respondent no. 4 during the course of the day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record, however, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.4. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 16.1.2024, giving rise to Case Crime No. 0013 of 2024, under Sections 498- A, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Right to Marriage) Act., 2019, Police Station Ganganagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj). District Utraon, 4. As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that the petitioner no.1 was married to opposite party no.4, however, after the said marriage, the petitioners started making demand of additional dowry from the opposite party no.4 and for the non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry, they used to torture her, maltreat her and beaten her and committed cruelty with her and she was also turned out of her matrimonial home. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that opposite party no.4 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and on account of matrimonial discord, the instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the petitioners by the opposite party no.3, father of respondent no. 4 by lodging the impugned first information report. 6. It is next submitted that impugned first information report was challenged by the petitioners by filing the instant writ petition before this Court and this Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 07.3.2024 referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settling the dispute through mediation. 7. Pursuant to the said order dated 07.3.2024, petitioner no.1 Mohd. Shoeb (husband) and opposite party no.4 Saniya Bano (wife) appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and thereafter, several joint and separate meetings were held in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settling the dispute through mediation with the help of the Mediators and finally, the dispute between the parties was amicably settled and a settlement agreement dated 20.08.2024 was drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been forwarded to this Court and placed on record, which shall form part of this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that a sum of Rs. 8.5 lacs was agreed to be paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the respondent no. 4 in lieu of all her claims and dues. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs has already been deposited in the bank account of the respondent no. 4 wife of petitioner no.1. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted on instruction that as per the notorized settlement agreement dated 28.8.2024 made between the parties, annexed with the main settlement agreement the petitioner no. 1 shall pay further a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs positively by due date fixed as mentioned in the notorized settlement agreement. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that as per the said settlement agreement, civil and criminal cases pending before the concerned court, filed by the parties against each other, will be withdrawn by them by moving an appropriate application and they will not pursue the same. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that said settlement agreement has been drawn between the parties voluntarily out of their own free will and without any coercion or undue influence and now, they do not have any grievance against each other. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the said settlement agreement and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, the impugned first information report against the petitioners be quashed. 13. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts and has submitted that he has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed. 14. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of :- (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. (vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. (vii) State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688. (viii) K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695.