High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1977 of 2022 Petitioner :- Suhail Ahmad And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Gaurav Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Jitendra Singh,Mohd Umar Farooq Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for State respondents. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R dated 27.11.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0387 of 2021, under sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh. This Court vide order dated 8.3.2022 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and had accorded interim protection to the petitioner. As per the Mediation Centre report dated 23.7.2022, parties have entered into settlement agreement on 1.7.2022. Para 7 of the settlement agreement reads as such: "In view of the Interim Settlement dated 07.07.2022, the following settlement has been the parties hereto: (a) That interim settlement dated 07.07.2022 shall form a part of this final settlement. (b) That it has been agreed between the parties that they petitioner- husband shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh fifty Thousand only) to the wife by way of demand drafts drawn in her favour. The aforesaid amount includes the amount of Meher, Iddat Period, maintenance and other financial claims of wife. Out of the aforesaid amount the petitioner-husband has already paid Rs. 1,50,000 (One Lakh fifty thousand only) to the wife and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (c) That today i.e. 21.07.2022, the petitioner-husband has handed over the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh only) through demand draft bearing No. 764515 dated 19.07.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, to Fatima Khan (Respondent No.4-Wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. (d) That it has been stated by the parties, that the articles/belongings including ornaments has been exchanged between them. (e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authority concerned.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 also been agreed between the parties that they will not file any case/complaint against each other regarding the present matrimonial dispute in future also. (g) 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 course" Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case the first information report is quashed as per the settlement. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, then between notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; the parties, "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 pre-dominatingly civil favour 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, 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." The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement.
Decision
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0387 of 2021, under sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh, are quashed. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.3.2022 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- but that court had not clarified what amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner. It is further clarified that it is an admitted fact that petitioners have deposited Rs. 20,000/- in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre through bank draft, out of which Rs. 15,000/- shall be released in favour of the informant and Rs. 5,000/- shall remain with Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Order Date :- 6.8.2022 Manish Tripathi Digitally signed by MANISH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.11 16:56:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad