State of U.P v. Saqib and others) which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge

Applicant :- Saqib Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumari Tiwari Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Mrs. Manoj Kumari Tiwari, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "To set-aside/quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 400 of 2024 (State of U.P. Versus Saqib and others) which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 0042/2024, Under Sections-342, 354-A, 504 & 506 I.P.C. & Section-7/8 POCSO Act pertaining to Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh."

4. Learned counsel for the parties stated that marriage of daughter of applicant No.2 with the son of opposite party No.2 was solemnized on 21.12.2018 and on account of some matrimonial dispute/ discord, the daughter of applicant No.2, living separately from her husband, instituted a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also lodged the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0045 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Phaphamau, District- Prayagraj implicating all family members and thereafter, the opposite party No.2/ complainant, in counter blast, lodged the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2024 making allegations to attract the offence under Section 342, 354-A,504 & 506 IPC & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh.

5. It is also stated that the applicant No. 1 is the son of applicant No. 2.

6. Also stated that in the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2024 the allegations were levelled against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and taking note of the statement(s) of the victim and statement(s) of other persons, though there is no medical opinion in support of the case of prosecution, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer upon which cognizance was taken and thereafter challenging the entire criminal proceedings an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 3940 of 2024 was filed by the present applicant before this Court which was disposed of with liberty to applicants to seek discharge vide order dated 29.04.2024. Thereafter, the application seeking discharge was preferred and the same has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2024.

7. It is also stated that the dispute, in fact, arose between daughter of applicant No. 2 and son of opposite party No. 2 on account of matrimonial discord and after interference of other family members both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.

8. It is also stated that the pending criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0045 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Phaphamau, District-Prayagraj has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.22173 of 2024 "Mohd Faiz Akhter Vs. State of U.P. and Another". The order referred reads as under:- "1. Certified copy of compromise and verification report filed by learned counsel for the applicants, in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 15.09.2022, of Case No. 680 of 2023 (State vs. Mohd. Faiz Akhter), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section - 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Phaphamau, District - Allahabad, pending in the court of A.C.J. (J.D.), Room No. 21, Allahabad, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2/informant and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the compromise, filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is also on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant does not want to proceed with the case pending before the trial court and the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as no useful purpose would be served by exhausting remedy of trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8. It is well settled that in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the instant case, it appears that matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The informant does not want to proceed with the case against the applicant. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, as the continuance of the same would be nothing but wastage of time of Court.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheet and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against applicant - Mohd. Faiz Akhter are hereby quashed.

10. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed."

9. Further submission is that taking note of the facts of the case including the cause of lodging the FIRs by the parties, this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in the Application U/S 482 No. 6663 of 2024 directed the parties to get the compromise verified by trial Court and it is evident from the order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure No.14) that the trial court has verified the compromise in terms of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6663 of 2024 mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the Court.

10. Prayer is to allow the present application.

11. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0042/2024, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Saqib Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumari Tiwari Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Mrs. Manoj Kumari Tiwari, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

3. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "To set-aside/quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 400 of 2024 (State of U.P. Versus Saqib and others) which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh arising out of Case Crime No. 0042/2024, Under Sections-342, 354-A, 504 & 506 I.P.C. & Section-7/8 POCSO Act pertaining to Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh."

4. Learned counsel for the parties stated that marriage of daughter of applicant No.2 with the son of opposite party No.2 was solemnized on 21.12.2018 and on account of some matrimonial dispute/ discord, the daughter of applicant No.2, living separately from her husband, instituted a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also lodged the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0045 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Phaphamau, District- Prayagraj implicating all family members and thereafter, the opposite party No.2/ complainant, in counter blast, lodged the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2024 making allegations to attract the offence under Section 342, 354-A,504 & 506 IPC & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh.

5. It is also stated that the applicant No. 1 is the son of applicant No. 2.

6. Also stated that in the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0042 of 2024 the allegations were levelled against the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and taking note of the statement(s) of the victim and statement(s) of other persons, though there is no medical opinion in support of the case of prosecution, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer upon which cognizance was taken and thereafter challenging the entire criminal proceedings an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 3940 of 2024 was filed by the present applicant before this Court which was disposed of with liberty to applicants to seek discharge vide order dated 29.04.2024. Thereafter, the application seeking discharge was preferred and the same has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.06.2024.

7. It is also stated that the dispute, in fact, arose between daughter of applicant No. 2 and son of opposite party No. 2 on account of matrimonial discord and after interference of other family members both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed.

8. It is also stated that the pending criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0045 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Phaphamau, District-Prayagraj has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.22173 of 2024 "Mohd Faiz Akhter Vs. State of U.P. and Another". The order referred reads as under:- "1. Certified copy of compromise and verification report filed by learned counsel for the applicants, in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 15.09.2022, of Case No. 680 of 2023 (State vs. Mohd. Faiz Akhter), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section - 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Phaphamau, District - Allahabad, pending in the court of A.C.J. (J.D.), Room No. 21, Allahabad, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2/informant and the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the compromise, filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is also on record. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the informant does not want to proceed with the case pending before the trial court and the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as no useful purpose would be served by exhausting remedy of trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8. It is well settled that in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the instant case, it appears that matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The informant does not want to proceed with the case against the applicant. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the law laid down in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, as the continuance of the same would be nothing but wastage of time of Court.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheet and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against applicant - Mohd. Faiz Akhter are hereby quashed.

10. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed."

9. Further submission is that taking note of the facts of the case including the cause of lodging the FIRs by the parties, this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in the Application U/S 482 No. 6663 of 2024 directed the parties to get the compromise verified by trial Court and it is evident from the order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure No.14) that the trial court has verified the compromise in terms of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 6663 of 2024 mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the Court.

10. Prayer is to allow the present application.

11. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0042/2024, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench