Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Farhat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 September, 2023
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188179 Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31104 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Farhat Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Fateh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Pratap Pal Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
1. Shri Bhanu Pratap Pal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3461 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohd. Farhat Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly and consequential conviction order dated 10.07.2019 as well as proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2019 (Mohd. Farthat Ali Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, XII, Bareilly.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant and on account of matrimonial discord, present criminal case has been instituted against the applicant by opposite party no.2, however subsequently, with the intervention of respected members of both the families, applicant and the opposite party no.2 have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and now they do not have any grievance against each other.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court to a compromise deed dated 02.02.2023, drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to his application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that pursuant to the said compromise, the applicant has paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to opposite party no.2 in liue of all her claims and dues and now nothing remains to be paid to her.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in view of the said compromise and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between the parties, entire proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
8. Learned counsel opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed a short counter affidavit and in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, the said compromise drawn between the parties has been acknowledged. It is further stated in paragraph 5 of the short counter affidavit that opposite party no.2 has received a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- from the applicant in lieu of all her claims and dues and now nothing remains to be paid to her. It is further stated in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit that opposite party no.2 is no more interested in pursuing the present proceedings against the applicant and has no objection if the entire proceedings are quashed.
9. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
10. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:-
(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.
Wherein 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3461 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohd. Farhat Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhamaura, District Bareilly and consequential conviction order dated 10.07.2019 as well as proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2019 (Mohd. Farthat Ali Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, XII, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.
13. This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Subham