Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ali And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 February, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5769 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohammad Ali And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Shamim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Deepak Singh Patel, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama along with a short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Deepak Singh Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.S. Sachan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.3937 of 2014 (Jamil Vs. Mohd. Ali & others), under Section 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have entered into compromise. The compromise deed is annexed as Annexure 5 to this application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that prima facie, it does appear that the present criminal proceedings do arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, due to which a complaint came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present the parties to the dispute, who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no.2, namely, Jamil Ahmad does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
A short counter affidavit has also been filed in this regard wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed. The averments made in para no.5 of the affidavit are reproduced hereinunder :-
"5. That it is pertinent to mention that in the present case both the parties have entered into compromise and the same has also been filed before the learned court below on 09.01.2020 and the complainant and his daughter/victim Ishrat Jahan does not want to proceed the case further against the applicants, as such, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.3937 of 2014 (Jamil Vs. Mohd. Ali and others), under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court and the opposite party no.2 and victim have no objection."
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants on the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court :-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677.
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Cort 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 the case of Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. & another; 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No.3937 of 2014 (Jamil Vs. Mohd. Ali & others), under Section 498-A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Anand Sri./-