Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Arif And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 August, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7948 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mohammad Arif And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Preeti Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh appears for the informant.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 13.5.2022 being Case Crime No.166 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 494 IPC at P.S. Sigra, Distt Varanasi and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
On the matter being taken up on 8.7.2022, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant- respondent no. 3.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 13.05.2022 registered as Case Crime No.166 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 494 IPC at Police Station Sigra, District- Varanasi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that no case is made out against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 494 I.P.C. as the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 3 are living together in the same house as husband and wife.
Learned counsel appearing for the informant fairly states that under some misconception, the first information report has been lodged as respondent no. 3 and her husband, petitioner no. 1 are living together in the same house as husband and wife.
Let the learned A.G.A. may seek instructions in the matter.
Put up this case as fresh on 18.07.2022.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation."
Thereafter, again on 18.7.2022 Shri A.N. Mullah, learned AGA was asked to seek instructions in the matter.
On the matter being taken up today, learned AGA files the short counter affidavit, which is taken on record. On the basis of short counter affidavit it is submitted that complainant has herself stated that under some misconception she has lodged the impugned FIR against her husband. Now all the misconceptions and misunderstanding has cleared and they are living jointly. She has also stated that now she is not willing to contest the case. She has also made an affidavit in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and as such present FIR may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection, in case the first information report is quashed.
It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved, 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.
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 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."
The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.166 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 494 IPC at P.S. Sigra, Distt Varanasi are quashed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022 SP/