Saffan and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—By means of this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the ''Cr. P.C.''), the applicants 1. Saffarn, 2. Abdul Qavi, 3. Smt. Ishtekhar, 4. Hassan, 5. Iffat and 6. Smt. Habiba have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case Nos. 3871 of 2001, State v. Saiful Islam and Ors.and 5024 of 2001, State v. Smt. Habiba, both arising out of Crime No. 36 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short the ''I.P.C.'') and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the ''D.P. Act'') of P. S. Mahila Thana Meerut, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application u/s 482 Cr. P.C., in brief, are that the marriage of applicant No. 1 Saffan and O.P. No. 3 Smt. Sagufta took place on 7.11.1999. Due to strained relations between the parties, an F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Sagufta against the applicants on 9.5.2001 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut, where a case under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered at Crime No. 36 of 2001. An application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. for granting maintenance was also filed by O.P. No. 3 Smt. Sagufta against her husband Saffan (applicant No. 1) in Family Court, Meerut. During pendency of the case u/s 125, Cr. P.C., the parties entered into compromise, in terms of which Rs. 51,000 were paid by the applicant Saffan to Smt. Sagufta through Bank Draft No. 829574 and Rs. 49,000 were also paid to her in cash for maintenance during iddat period. Entire stridhan was also returned to Smt. Sagufta and divorce was also granted to her according to the Muslim rites. According to the terms of the compromise, Smt. Sagufta had agreed that she would not prosecute the Case of Crime No. 36 of 2001. Inspite of this compromise, Charge-sheet No. 39 of 2001 against the applicants Saffan, Abdul Qavi, Smt. Ishtekhar, Hasaan and Smt. Iffat and Anr. Charge-sheet No. 39A of 2001, against the applicant Smt. Habiba were filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, who after taking cognizance summoned the applicants-accused to face the trial in Crl. Case No. 3871 of 2001 and 5024 of 2001. Proceedings of both these cases are being sought to be quashed by the applicants by means of this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

I have heard Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. None appeared for the O.P. No. 3 Smt. Sagufta on the day of hearing.

Placing reliance on the cases of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2006 (30) JIC 135: 2007 (1) ACR 610, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that proceedings of both criminal cases pending against the applicants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut should be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C. as the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute and on the basis of compromise, the proceedings of the case u/s 125, Cr. P.C. has been decided by the Family Court, Meerut. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that in terms of the compromise, Rs. 51,000 were paid by the applicant Saffan to Smt. Sagufta towards mehar and Rs. 49,000 were paid to her for maintenance during iddat period and entire stridhan has also been returned to her and hence continuance of the proceedings of criminal cases is not in the interest of justice.

Although the O.P. No. 3 Smt. Sagufta had appeared and filed vakalatnama of Sri Aditya Prashad Mishra advocate on 11.6.2004, but she has not fled any counter-affidavit to controvert the averments made in the affidavit of Abdul Qavi, which has been filed in support of the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. annexing therewith certain papers as annexures.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, I am of the opinion that continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Court of C.J.M., Meerut is not in the interest of justice. It is not disputed that marriage of the applicant No. 1 Saffan and O.P. No. 3 Smt. Sagufta took place according to Muslim rites on 7.11.1999. Due to some strained relations, Smt. Sagufta lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants on 9.5.2001 at P. S. Mahila Thana, Meerut, where a case under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act was registered. An application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. was also filed by Smt. Sagufta for granting maintenance against the applicant Saffan in Family Court, Meerut. On the basis of that application, Case No. 255 of 2001 was registered. During pendency of that case, the parties entered into a compromise, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit. In terms of that compromise, an application was moved on 26.5.2001 in Family Court, Meerut by Smt. Sagufta, in which it was prayed that the case u/s 125, Cr. P.C., be decided in terms of the compromise. Annexure-5 is the copy of that application. It is further averred in this application that in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the entire stridhan has been received by Smt. Sagufta and she has also received bank draft for Rs. 51,000 towards her mehar and Rs. 49,000 also have been received by her in cash for maintenance during iddat period. It is further averred in this application that Saffan has divorced her according to Muslim rites on 25.5.2001. It is also mentioned in that application that Smt. Sagufta would not prosecute the Case of Crime No. 36 of 2001, under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, which was got registered by her at P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut and she would get the said case dismissed by filing compromise there also. On the basis of the compromise, the Family Court, Meerut has decided case No. 255 of 2001 u/s 125, Cr. P.C. in terms of the compromise vide order dated 26.5.2001 Annexure-7 is the copy of that order. Smt. Sagufta has not controverted the averments made in these papers by filing counter-affidavit, although she has appeared in this Court through her counsel Sri Aditya Prashad Mishra. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the affidavit of Abdul Qavi, which has been filed in support of the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. Hence, in view of the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), which has been followed in the case of Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi v. State of U.P. (supra), continuance of the proceedings of aforesaid criminal cases against the applicants is not in the interest of justice.

In Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi v. State of U.P. (supra) also, the proceedings of criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 of D. P. Act was quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. (LIX) 2005 ACC 217, also in which the Hon''ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 of D. P. Act, due to the compromise entered into between the parties in the proceedings u/s 125, Cr. P.C. Following this case, this Court in the case of Shikha Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. (LIX) 2007 ACC 123, quashed the proceedings of criminal case due to the compromise entered into between the parties. Similarly in the case of Dinesh Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.(LIX) 2007 ACC 148, this Court has quashed the proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 of D. P. Act due to the compromise entered into between the parties in the proceedings u/s 125, Cr. P.C. Reliance in this case has been placed on B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra).

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is allowed to continue. Therefore, to do the complete justice, the proceedings of criminal cases may be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

Consequently, the application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3871 of 2001, State v. Saiful Islam and Ors., relating to charge-sheet No. 39 of 2001, as well as Criminal Case No. 5024 of 2001, State v. Smt. Habiba, relating to charge-sheet No. 39A of 2001 under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, both arising out of Crime No. 36 of 2001 of P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for necessary action.