High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise.

3. On 5.9.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. It is submitted that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the trial court concerned. It is further submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

5. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the trial court concerned or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 16.09.2024 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.

6. Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

7. List this case on 04.10.2024.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In compliance of the order dated 05.09.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 27.01.2025. The letter of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad dated 27.09.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 19.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.

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 counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. 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,

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise.

3. On 5.9.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. It is submitted that on account of intervention of the well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the trial court concerned. It is further submitted that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

5. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the trial court concerned or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 16.09.2024 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.

6. Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

7. List this case on 04.10.2024.

8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In compliance of the order dated 05.09.2024, compromise verification report is placed on record as is evident from office report dated 27.01.2025. The letter of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad dated 27.09.2024 has been placed on record along with order dated 19.09.2024 vide which compromise has been verified between the parties.

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 counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

7. 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,

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings, including charge-sheet no. 70 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.07.2024, of criminal case no. 29605 of 2024, CNR No. UPMO04005128/2024 (State Vs. Mahfooz Alam and Others), arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, P.S. Galshaheed, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Moradabad, on the basis of compromise, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad