Mohd. Tahir vs State of U.P.

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 30.5.2003 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2937A of 2002, State v. Mohd. Tahir Case No. 2937A of 2002, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Basti.

The brief facts, giving rise to this application, are that Smt. Kudrutunnisha was married with Mohd. Tahir who later on divorced her on 8.10.2001. Smt. Kudrutunnisha lodged a report u/s 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act which was registered as Case Crime No. 345 of 2001 in which the applicant was not named as accused. A charge-sheet was submitted against the named accused in which the trial proceeded and the party filed compromise but the Court recorded the evidence and Criminal Case No. 2937A of 2002 ended in acquittal. The other case filed by Smt. Kudrutunnisha u/s 125, Cr. P.C. was also decided in terms of compromise which is Annexure-4.

So far as the case of applicant is concerned, applicant was in Arab and came to Lucknow on 25.4.2002. On the basis of old investigation, a supplementary Charge-Sheet No. 71A was filed against the applicant, whereupon he was summoned by the Court. Against the summoning order, the applicant filed Misc. Application No. 8653 of 2002, Mohd. Tahir v. State of U. P Misc. Application No. 8653 of 2002. by which the further proceedings were stayed. (Now this Misc. Application No. 8653 of 2002 has been dismissed as not pressed, as the main case was compromised). Later on Smt. Kudrutunnisha filed compromise in this case as well, which is Annexure-1 to the present application. The said compromise was rejected by the Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the impugned order and other annexed records. A compromise was filed, the copy of which is Annexure-1. The said compromise was rejected on the ground that proceedings of the case had been stayed by this Court in Misc. Application No. 8653 of 2002. So far as this fact is concerned, this application has already been dismissed as not pressed. Thus, this point came to an end.

So far as the compromise has been rejected, holding that the offence is not compoundable and the bar created by Section 320, Cr. P.C. cannot be crossed over by this compromise, is concerned, it is held in B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2003 (2) ACR 1305 (SC): 2003 (3) SCC 277, that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings of F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

I have carefully perused the above authority and found that in cases, where the conviction cannot be recorded, there is no use to permit a prosecution to continue. In the present case, the case against the other accused has ended in acquittal. The compromise was also filed in the proceeding u/s 125, Cr. P.C. Thus, in the present case as well, when the compromise has been filed, the chances of an ultimate conviction are zero. Moreover the parties, who are the family members of the former sasural of the complainant have come to terms, hence there is no justification for refusing compromise.

Consequently, the application deserves to be allowed. The order dated 30.5.2003, passed in Criminal Case No. 2937A of 2002, State v. Mohd. Tahir Case No. 2937A of 2002, is quashed.