Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 973 (ALL)

Iqbal v. State of U. P.

2022-06-24

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, K.J.THAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. By way of this petition, the accused-petitioners prays for quashment of the impugned First Information Report dated 21.4.2022 registered in Case Crime No. 93 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad and also for staying his arrest in respect of the aforesaid First Information Report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 have jointly submitted that the matrimonial discord between the parties have been amicably settled and that the respondent No. 3 does not to proceed with the matter. In this regard, short counter-affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 3 and thus the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed. 4. Marital dispute has been culminated into lodgement of the impugned F.I.R. dated 21.4.2022 registered in aforesaid case crime. The petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, out of those five Sections, Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are compoundable. Although, Sections 354 read with Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable but if the parties wants to live peacefully married life, the same does not make a bar. The Investigation papers has been produced by Counsel for the State, which shows that no offence under Sections 376, 354 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. 5. Prima facie, looking to the F.I.R., investigation is continuing, although short counter-affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 contains the averments that the proceedings initiated by the wife in a very haste manner, which may not be permitted to be carried on, as the matter has been settled between the parties and thus the F.I.R. may be quashed. 6. The Gujarat High Court has recently held that criminal proceedings of private nature can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has concluded in conviction, in case, if the parties wants to resolve their dispute, which is not of serious nature and the dispute is not one, which is opposed to public policy. 6. The Gujarat High Court has recently held that criminal proceedings of private nature can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has concluded in conviction, in case, if the parties wants to resolve their dispute, which is not of serious nature and the dispute is not one, which is opposed to public policy. The powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution are much more than under Section 482 Cr.P.C and therefore by exercising the said powers, this Court can quashed the F.I.R. 7. The Apex Court Judgments rendered in the matter of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 , Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand @ Anr, 2022 Live Law (SC) 34, Bitan Sengupta v. State of West Bengal, (2018) 18 SCC 366 , B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , will also enure for the benefit of the present accused-petitioners. The Judgement of this Court, though of single Judge rendered in the matter of Pramod and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2021(3) ADJ 94 will also enure for the benefit of the accused-petitioners. It is inherent powers of the High Court, in such matters that can be invoked where the Court is satisfied that the parties have willingly decided to bury their dispute. 8. It is very clear that the petitioners have prima facie committed the said offence. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the same was registered on the basis that cognizable offence is disclosed and thus there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The fact that the first informant/respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioners have compromised the matter before the village peoples, who have also given an affidavit, which are annexed collectively as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. As the first informant/respondent No. 3 has not been medically examined by the police and therefore the provisions of Section 376 I.P.C. as alleged cannot be said to be made out. The offence stems out discordance, which is a reason for lodging of the impugned F.I.R, but it is shown that the respondent No. 3/first informant decided to give up the case and therefore, as the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are compoundable, the same are permitted as compounded. The offence stems out discordance, which is a reason for lodging of the impugned F.I.R, but it is shown that the respondent No. 3/first informant decided to give up the case and therefore, as the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are compoundable, the same are permitted as compounded. So far as the Sections 376, 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be said that any offence is committed as the victim has not been medically examined and also in view of the fact that once the parties have decided that they do not wish to contest the matter, the F.I.R. ought to have be quashed. The Judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, MANU 0163 SC 2022, will also enure for the benefit of the present petitioners. 8-A. In view of above, the First Information Report dated 21.4.2022 for the offence committed on 1.10.2021 i.e. before six months, registered in Case Crime No. 93 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad, is quashed. 9. The petition is allowed. The Police officials shall not take any further steps in the matter. We are thankful to Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 for rendering their assistance to this Court.