# Ali Mohammad & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-18
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 1367 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ali-mohammad-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47007
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Quashing
of criminal proceedings under Sections
323, 504, 308, 325 I.P.C on basis of
Compromise
-
Non-
Compoundable
offence- The offence under Section 308
I.P.C. is with regard to the attempt to
commit
culpable
homicide.
The
said
Section of 308 I.P.C. is not compoundable
offence either with or without leave of the
court- None of the offences are heinous
offence affecting public at large, the
parties being members of the family- They
have no other criminal case between
them, therefore, they are entitled to live
peacefully as family members in the
society- The inherent power may be
exercised in different ways to achieve its
ultimate objective. Formation of opinion
by the High Court before it exercises
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
on either of the twin objectives (i) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court
or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a
sine qua non.

It is settled law that the power u/s 482 Cr.Pc
can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings
even
in
non-compoundable
offences where the offence arises out of a
family dispute, is not heinous and is private and
personal in nature, not effecting public life, and
the parties have amicably arrived
at a
compromise
rendering
the
possibility
of
conviction remote.( Para 11, 12, 13)

Criminal Application accordingly allowed.
(E-2)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon: -

## Text

4 All. Ali Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
jurisdiction and competence of the District
Supply Officer has been clarified in
absolute terms to the effect that he has
jurisdiction to pass order of suspension or
cancellation in respect of the entire given
district.

13. In such view of the matter, I do
not find any force in the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
order passed by the District Supply Officer
is without jurisdiction.

14. On this count, this petition is
devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No other grounds are pressed
before this Court.

15. The petitioner is, however, at
liberty to challenge the order by filing
statutory appeal, if he so desires.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)04ILR A281
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 1367 of 2021

Ali Mohammad & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Devendra Pratap

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Quashing
of criminal proceedings under Sections
323, 504, 308, 325 I.P.C on basis of
Compromise
-
Non-
Compoundable
offence- The offence under Section 308
I.P.C. is with regard to the attempt to
commit
culpable
homicide.
The
said
Section of 308 I.P.C. is not compoundable
offence either with or without leave of the
court- None of the offences are heinous
offence affecting public at large, the
parties being members of the family- They
have no other criminal case between
them, therefore, they are entitled to live
peacefully as family members in the
society- The inherent power may be
exercised in different ways to achieve its
ultimate objective. Formation of opinion
by the High Court before it exercises
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
on either of the twin objectives (i) to
prevent abuse of the process of any court
or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a
sine qua non.

It is settled law that the power u/s 482 Cr.Pc
can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings
even
in
non-compoundable
offences where the offence arises out of a
family dispute, is not heinous and is private and
personal in nature, not effecting public life, and
the parties have amicably arrived
at a
compromise
rendering
the
possibility
of
conviction remote.( Para 11, 12, 13)

Criminal Application accordingly allowed.
(E-2)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon: -

1. Gyan Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

 1. The case is called out.
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Devendra Pratap, Advocate and learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri S.P. Tiwari,
Advocate are present in the Court.

3. The present application is moved
on behalf of the applicants to quash the
criminal proceeding in Session Trial
No.26/2018, arising out of Case Crime
No.858/2015, under Sections 323, 504,
308, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali
City, District- Hardoi pending before
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11,
Hardoi on the basis of compromise.

4. Sri Shashank Singh, Advocate
holding brief of Ms. Anita Singh Nagore,
Advocate, put his appearance on behalf of
the opposite parties no.2 to 4 through their
Vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
Office is directed to get registered the same
and duly place on record.

5. Learned counsels for the accusedapplicants drew the attention of the court
towards their earlier application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. Case
No.666/2021, wherein they expressed their
willingness to amicably settle their family
dispute, by reason of which criminal
proceedings in Session Trial No.26/2018
(State Vs. Rahman and Ors.), Case Crime
No.858/2015 under Sections 323, 504, 308,
325 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali City,
District- Hardoi.

6. In view of the willingness of
complainants also to amicably settle their
dispute, this Court vide its order dated
18.2.2021 in the aforesaid application
(Annexure
No.1)
issued
following
direction:-

"In view of above, it is directed
that the applicants will produce the
compromise deed before trial court within
two weeks who will fix a date for appearing
of both the parties before court concerned
and verify the compromise in presence of
all the parties to the litigation in
accordance with law.

The applicants may take the
certified copy of the order of verification of
compromise to the court concerned and
may approach to this Court for their
further remedy.

With the aforesaid direction, the
application is disposed of.

Office is directed to provide
original compromise deed to the counsel
for the applicants in accordance with
rules."

7. It is alleged in the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that
the rival parties to aforesaid Sessions Trial
No.26/2018 have entered into compromise
to settle their all disputes. However, the
materials placed on record is lacking the
FIR of the incident which may help to
gather the nature of the incident, with
regard to which FIR was filed by the
complainant. However, in para-3 of the
application, it is averred by the accusedapplicants that, both the parties are family
members and with the permission of
Hon'ble High Court, compromise was
verified by learned court below.

8. From perusal of the direction dated
18.2.2021 passed by this court in Crl. Misc.
Case No.666/2021 under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (Ali Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors.) and the prayer made in the
instant application, it can be appreciated
with all certainty that the matter alleged to
have been settled amicably between the
4 All. Ali Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
rival parties to the criminal proceeding of
Sessions Trial No.26/2018, instituted upon
Case
Crime
No.858/2015
(State
Vs.
Rahman & Ors.) under Sections 323, 504,
308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali
City, District- Hardoi. Further, pursuant to
the direction dated 18.2.2021, when the
rival parties to the aforesaid criminal
proceeding in Sessions Trial No.26/2018,
personally appeared before the trial court
alongwith their compromise agreement for
verification, a report was made by the trial
court on 2.3.2021 (Annexure No.2). The
report reveals that the compromise was
taken on record in view of the direction
dated 18.2.2021 passed by this Court in
Crl.
Misc.
Case
No.666/2021.
The
signatories of the compromise agreement
were personally present before the trial
court for presentation of their compromise
agreement. Learned counsels for the
respective rival parties to the criminal
proceeding
in
the
Sessions
Trial
No.26/2018, identified them. Lastly, the
trial court recorded its satisfaction that
compromise was entered between the
signatories of compromise agreement with
their free will without any coercion or
undue
pressure.
The
compromise
agreement is signed by all the parties to the
incident namely the complainant, the
injured and the accused-applicants.

9. In para-3 of the instant application,
it is very clearly stated that they are family
members and as such they prayed to decide
the case on the basis of compromise.

10. On perusal of the Annexure No.2,
the compromise agreement, though have
not expressly stated about the dispute
between the parties to the agreement i.e.,
the present accused-applicants and the
opposite party nos.2 to 4, but so far as the
intent
to
settle
their
dispute
is
concerned, it is obvious on the face of
agreement, that they do not want to
continue anymore with the Sessions Trial
No.26/2018 arising out of Case Crime
No.858/2015, under Sections 323, 504,
308, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali
City, District- Hardoi.

11. The compromise agreement is
thus, lawful agreement. The compromise
involves the criminal case being tried upon
in
Sessions
Trial
No.26/2018
under
Sections 323, 504, 308, 325 I.P.C. The
offence under Section 323 I.P.C. provides
punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and
it is made compoundable in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, on the instance
of person to whom the hurt is caused.
Likewise, the offence under Section 325
I.P.C. is with regard to voluntarily causing
grievous hurt and it is also made
compoundable on the instance of person to
whom such hurt is caused with the leave of
the court. The offence under Section 504
I.P.C. is with regard to the intentional insult
with the intent to provoke breach of peace
is also made compoundable on the instance
of person insulted. Lastly, the offence
under Section 308 I.P.C. is with regard to
the attempt to commit culpable homicide.
The said Section of 308 I.P.C. is not
compoundable offence either with or
without leave of the court, as such, it is
clear that except offence under Section 308
I.P.C., all other offences with which the
accused-applicants
are
arraigned
in
Sessions
Trial
No.26/2018
are
compoundable by the trial court under
Section 320 Cr.P.C. Though, the parties to
the instant application before this Court are
willing to drop the criminal proceeding
under the aforesaid sessions trial on the
basis of their amicable settlement by way
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of compromise. It is not possible for the
trial court to drop the proceeding by reason
of
it
lacking
the
competence
of
compounding the offence under Section
308 I.P.C.

12.

In
view
of
the
above
circumstances, it would be in the interest of
justice to take into consideration, the
compromise of the rival parties i.e.,
accused-applicants and opposite party nos.2
to 4 to the instant application for the
purpose of dropping of the criminal
proceeding in view of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gyan
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in 2012 (10) SCC 303, if the signatories of
the duly verified lawful agreement of
compromise be not permitted to settle their
dispute on the basis of compromise and the
proceeding
of
the
Sessions
Trial
No.26/2018 be not quashed, accordingly,
the entire exercise of the trial court in
continuance of the sessions trial would be
futile and against the wishes of the parties.
Moreover, none of the offences are heinous
offence affecting public at large, the parties
being members of the family, it would be
just and proper to allow their prayer for
quashing of the charge-sheet No.74/2015
and criminal proceeding in Sessions Trial
No.26/2018 under Sections 323, 504, 308,
325 I.P.C. They have no other criminal
case between them, therefore, they are
entitled to live peacefully as family
members in the society.

13. In Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr. (Supra), Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 41, 42 and 43 has held as
under:-

"41. In Rajiv Saxena and others
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2012)
5 SCC 627, this Court allowed the
quashment of criminal case under Sections
498-A and 496 read with Section 34 IPC by
a brief order. It was observed that since the
parties had settled their disputes and the
complainant agreed that the criminal
proceedings need not be continued, the
criminal proceedings could be quashed.

42. In a very recent judgment
decided by this Court in the month of July,
2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v.
State of Gujarat and another[36], this
Court was again concerned with the
question of quashment of an FIR alleging
offences punishable under Sections 467,
468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High
Court refused to quash the criminal case
under Section 482 of the Code. The
question
for
consideration
was
that
inasmuch as all those offences, except
Section 420 IPC, were non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code,
whether it would be possible to quash the
FIR by the High Court under Section 482
of the Code or by this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench
elaborately considered the decision of this
Court in Shiji alias Pappu33 and by
invoking Article 142 of the Constitution
quashed the criminal proceedings. It was
held as under:-

"10. In the light of the principles
mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent
No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an
affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the
Appellant (Accused No. 3) during the
pendency of the appeal before this Court
and the terms of settlement as stated in the
said affidavit, by applying the same
analogy and in order to do complete justice
under Article 142 of the Constitution, we
accept the terms of settlement insofar as the
Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is
concerned.
4 All. Ali Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285

11. In view of the same, we quash
and set aside the impugned FIR No.
45/2011 registered with Sanand Police
Station,
Ahmedabad
for
offences
punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471,
420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the
Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.
The appeal is allowed to the extent
mentioned above".

43. In Y. Suresh Babu v. State of
A. P. (2005) 1 SCC 347 decided on April
29,
1987,
this
Court
allowed
the
compounding of an offence under Section
326 IPC even though such compounding
was not permitted by Section 320 of the
Code. However, in Ram Lal and Anr. v.
State of J & K 1999 2 SCC 213, this Court
observed that Y. Suresh Babu 2005 1 SCC
347 was per incuriam. It was held that an
offence which law declares to be noncompoundable cannot be compounded at
all even with the permission of the Court."

14. The question is with regard to the
inherent power of the High Court in
quashing the criminal proceeding against
an offender who has settled his dispute with
the victim of the crime but the crime in
which he is allegedly involved is not
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh (Supra)
has answered that the inherent power may
be exercised in different ways to achieve its
ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by
the High Court before it exercises inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on either
of the twin objectives (i) to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or (ii) to secure
the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

15. In the case of Gian Singh
(Supra), the concluding para-57 is of much
essence to be quoted hereunder so as to
form an opinion of this Court to allow
the prayer of present accused applicants:-

"57. The position that emerges
from
the
above
discussion
can
be
summarized thus: 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 predominatingly
civil
flavour
stand
on
different footing for the purposes of
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

16. On the basis of aforesaid
discussions and considering the dispute
with regard to the offences allegedly to
have been committed by the present
accused-applicants is amicably settled with
the victims of the offence. Since they are
not heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity etc., the charge-sheet and further
proceeding flowing therefrom in Sessions
Trial No.26/2018 may be quashed in view
of the compromise.

17. The charge-sheet no.74/2015 filed
by the police and the criminal proceedings
flowing
therefrom
in
Session
Trial
No.26/2018, arising out of Case Crime
No.858/2015, under Sections 323, 504,
308, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali
City, District- Hardoi are quashed and the
trial court is directed accordingly to drop
the proceedings.

18. The prayer made in the instant
application by the accused-applicants and
opposite parties no.2 to 4 is allowed.

19. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

20. The Deputy Registrar (Criminal)
is to communicate the order of this Court to
the
learned
court
below
(Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Hardoi)
promptly.
----------
(2021)04ILR A286
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.3.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 1520 of 2021

Babu @ Naseem & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sheikh Mohammad Ali

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.