High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23500-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15676 of 2024 Petitioner :- Arifur Rahman @ Urfi And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Jameel,Shahabuddin Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondents and perused the material brought on the record. 2. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the instant petition on 4.9.2024, keeping in view the fact that dispute between the parties is qua the marital discord, has proceeded to refer the matter before the Mediation Centre of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court was also pleased to accord the interim protection in favour of the petitioners herein till the final outcome of the mediation proceedings. For ready reference, the aforesaid order dated 4.9.2024 is reproduced hereinunder:- "1. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and Sri K.C. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 2.10.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 0264 of 2023, under Sections 323, 506, 420, 498A, 392, 354, 328, 376 and 3/4 D.P. Act IPC, P.S. Lalpur/Pandeypur, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi) and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the both the parties that the matter may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
Decision
4. In view of the above, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,0000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court out of which Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no. 4, on the date fixed, for her appearance before the Mediation Centre and Rs. 5000/- shall be retained by the Mediation Centre as mediation fee. 5. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that after deposit of such amount, by the petitioner, the mediation centre shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation by the next date fixed. 6. Both the parties are directed to appear before Mediation Centre on 16.11.2023. 7. Put up this case on 11.12.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre. 8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the above mentioned case. 9. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioner either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter." 3. In deference to the aforesaid mandate given by Division Bench of this Court on 4.9.2024, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement/agreement took place on 22.1.2025. The relevant para 7 of the aforesaid Settlement/Agreement dated 22.1.2025 is reproduced hereinunder:- "क. यह कक अअंतररिम समझझौतते कदिननअंक 15.01.2025 कते पपैरिनगनफ 7 (क) कते अननुसनरि, शቦኍ आररिफनुरि रिहमनन@उफቛኍ (यनकचिकनकतनቔኋ सअं.1-पकत) एवअं शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3-पत्नቦኍ) अलग- अलग रिहनन चिनहतते हह तथन शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3-पत्नቦኍ) नते शቦኍ आररिफनुरि रिहमनन@उफቛኍ सते खनुलन लते ललयन हपै, लजिसकते सम्बन्ध मम उन्होሻनते 22.01.2025 कको एक नकोटरिቦኍककत समझझौतनननमन/इकरिनरिननमन ्ቚस्तनुत ककयन हपै। उपरिको्ሹ समझझौतनननमन /इकरिनरिननमन कदिननाሩक 22.01.2025 ककी नकोटरिቦኍककत ्ቚकत इस समझझौतते कते सनथ सअंल्ሿ हपै। ख. यह कक दिकोनोሻ पकोሻ कते मध्य यह समझझौतन हहआ थन , कक शቦኍ आररिफनुरि रिहमनन@उफቛኍ (यनकचिकनकतनቔኋ सअं.1-पकत) एकमनुश्त धनरिनकशि र. 4,50,000/- (र. चिनरि लनख पचिनस हजिनरि मनत) लजिसमम स्थनयቦኍ गनुजिनरिन भतन, भरिण-पकोषण शिनकमल हपै, शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3- पत्नቦኍ) कको कडिमनण्डि डिडनफ्ट कते जिररियते अदिन करितेगन। ग. यह कक कदिननाሩक 15.01.2025 कको शቦኍ आररिफनुरि रिहमनन@उफቛኍ (यनकचिकनकतनቔኋ सअं.1-पकत) दनरिन र. 4,50,000/- (र. चिनरि लनख पचिनस हजिनरि मनत) कन एक कडिमनण्डि डिडनफ्ट सअंख्यन 000590, बहक ऑफ इअंकडियन दनरिन कदिननाሩक 10.01.2025 कको अअंबरिቦኍन मअंजिजूरि (पत्नቦኍ) कते ननम जिनरिቦኍ ककयन गयन हपै, लजिसकको शቦኍ आररिफनुरि रिहमनन@उफቛኍ (यनकचिकनकतनቔኋ सअं.1-पकत) दनरिन ्ቚस्तनुत ककयन गयन थन, लजिसते दिकोनोሻ पकोሻ ककी सहमकत सते पतनवलቦኍ मम रिखन गयन थन। आजि कदिननाሩक 22.01.2025 कको उपरिको्ሹ कडिमनण्डि डिडनफ्ट शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3-पत्नቦኍ) कको सौሺप कदियन, लजिसककी ्ቚनकኌ शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3- पत्नቦኍ) सनुकनशश्चित करितቦኍ हपै। घ. यह कक अअंतररिम समझझौतते कदिननाሩक 15.01.2025 कते पपैरिनगनफ 7 (घ) कते अननुसनरि, शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3- पत्नቦኍ) नते इ्ቌत अवलध कन दिनवन मनफ करि कदियन हपै औरि वते भकवष्य मम भቦኍ ऐसन दिनवन नहीሻ करिमगቦኍ औरि इस सम्बन्ध मम शቦኍमतቦኍ अअंबरिቦኍन (्ቚकतवनकदिनቦኍ सअं. 3- पत्नቦኍ) नते एक नकोटरिቦኍककत शिपथ-पत कदिननाሩक 22.01.2025 कन ्ቚस्तनुत ककयन हपै, लजिसककी ्ቚकत इस समझझौतते कते सनथ सअंल्ሿ हपै। ङ. यह कक दिकोनोሻ पक एक दिजूसरिते कते कवर्ቍ पअंजिቦኍककत/कवचिनरिनधቦኍन इस वपैवनकहक कववनदि सते सअंबअंलधत समस्त वनदिोሻ कको न्यनयनलय/्ቚनलधकरिण कते समक वनपस लमगते।" चि. यह कक दिकोनोሻ पक एक दिजूसरिते कते लखलनफ , इस वपैवनकहक वनदि कते सअंदिभቔኋ मम भकवष्य मम ककोई नयन मनुकदिमन/वनदि दिनयरि नहीሻ करिमगते। 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that till date, no charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 22.1.2025, admitted amount to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been given to informant as one time settlement through a demand draft which has been ensured by the learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 have decided to dissolve the marriage as per the terms and conditions of settlement/agreements dated 22.1.2025. In the aforesaid mediation proceedings, the respondent No.3 (wife) has also ensured that she would never again initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has given a nod to the said situation. 6. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement/agreement dated 22.1.2025, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, 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. 7. 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, between the parties, then 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 inherent 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 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." 8. The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. 9. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of impugned First Information Report dated 21.03.2024 registered as Case Crime No.30 of 2024, under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. - Chamanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad