Mufti Tayyab vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Present C528 application has been filed by the applicant along with the joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2023; cognizance and summoning order dated 28.06.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.268 of 2024, State vs. Mufti Tayyab, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 pending before the learned First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

Applicant-Mufti Tayyab and respondent no.2-Aaysha (appeared through V.C.) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that respondent no.2 has amicably resolved their dispute with the applicant with the intervention of elderly persons and does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings.

Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.268 of 2024 (C.I.S. No.5163 of 2024), State vs. Mufti Tayyab, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 pending before the learned First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR No.511 of 2022 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed.

Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.