# Imran and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-28
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25378 of 2009
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad, Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/imran-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41606
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art-226-Quashing
of
FIR-Dispute
arises
out
from
matrimonial differences-if the Parties
settled their difference out of court and
compromised to settled all cases against
each other-writ court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal Proceeding to
secure the end of justice.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above judgments of the
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is clear
that in cases where the parties have
settled their disputes amicably the High
Court should not hesitate in quashing
the criminal proceedings so as to secure
the ends of justice.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 464; 2000 SCC (Cri) 733;
AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386; (1977) 2 SCC

## Text

490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

7. In the circumstances, the present
Writ Petition is disposed of finally with the
following directions:

8. (i) The petitioners may deposit the
entire amount sought to be recovered
directly with the contesting respondent no.3
(Uttar
Pradesh
Sahkari
Avas
Sangh
Limited) in six equal quarterly instalments
with up-to-date interest.

(ii) The first instalment may be
deposited by 19.8.2010, the second by
19.11.2010, the third by 19.2.2011, the
fourth by 19.5.2011, the fifth by 19.8.2011,
and the last/sixth by 19.11.2011. Any
amount already deposited will be adjusted.

(iii) This order will not affect any
auction or sale which may already have
taken place.

(iv) If the petitioners deposit the
instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed
by this Court, in time, the recovery shall be
kept in abeyance but if the petitioners
default in paying any of the instalment, this
order
shall
stand
vacated
and
the
respondents will be at liberty to proceed
against the petitioners in accordance with
law.

(v) On deposit of all the instalments
with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this
Court, in time, the recovery proceedings
against the petitioners will be dropped, and
the recovery charges will not be recovered
from the petitioners.

(vi) This order will not be applicable if
the petitioners have filed any earlier writ
petition challenging the recovery of this
loan.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25378 of 2009

Imran and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners:
Mir Sayed

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
Sri Shahabuddin

Constitution of India, Art-226-Quashing
of
FIR-Dispute
arises
out
from
matrimonial differences-if the Parties
settled their difference out of court and
compromised to settled all cases against
each other-writ court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal Proceeding to
secure the end of justice.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above judgments of the
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it is clear
that in cases where the parties have
settled their disputes amicably the High
Court should not hesitate in quashing
the criminal proceedings so as to secure
the ends of justice.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 464; 2000 SCC (Cri) 733;
AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386; (1977) 2 SCC
699.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioners Imran and others
for issuing a writ, order or direction in the
2 All] Imran and others V. State of U.P. and others
491
nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
First Information Report dated 04.12.2009
in case crime no. 997 of 2009, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. And 3/4
D. P. Act, P.S., Chakeri, District, Kanpur
Nagar, (Annexure no. 1 to the writ
petition). It has been further prayed that
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not
to arrest the petitioners in the above
mentioned case may also be issued.

2. The facts as are discernable from
the papers filed with this writ petition are
that informant Shahid Hussain lodged a
First Information Report at P.S., Chakeri,
District, Kanpur Nagar on 04.12.2009 at
2:00 p.m. against the petitioner Imran, his
family members and relatives mentioning
therein that informants Sister Smt. Salma
Khatoon was married to the petitioner
Imran on 04.01.2002 and an amount of
Rs.35 lacs was spent in the marriage.
However, the husband and in-laws were
not satisfied with the dowry given at the
time of marriage and they started
demanding a plot of 200 Sq. Yards along
with Rs.15 lacs for carrying the business.
Smt. Salma Khatoon was being harassed
and teased and beaten due to nonfulfillment of the said demand. When the
informant expressed his inability to fulfill
the demand, Smt. Salma Khatoon along
with her two children was turned out from
her marital home.

3. We have heard the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 as well as
the learned A.G.A., Sri Karuna Nand
Bajpayee.

In this writ petition the informant Shahid
Hussain, respondent no. 4 appeared. On
26.04.2010 a compromise entered into
between Imram (husband) and Smt.
Salma Khatoon (wife) was produced
before the Court. The execution of the
compromise was ratified by Imran and
Smt. Salma Khatoon.

4. In this compromise it has been
mentioned that a divorce has taken place
between the husband and the wife and
they are living separately. It has further
been mentioned that the two sons Mohd.
Aman, 6 years and Mohd. Azeem, 4 years
are living with their mother Smt. Salma
Khatoon and they will continue to remain
with her. The husband will not initiate any
proceedings in any Court to take their
custody. It has also been averred that the
husband shall pay Rs.6,50,000/- each for
the maintenance and education of the two
sons
and
Rs.7,00,000/-
for
the
maintenance of wife Smt. Salma Khatoon
through three drafts and that the wife Smt.
Salma Khatoon or two sons shall not be
entitled to any money in future.

A mention was also made that the
informant Shahid Hussain has lodged a
report against the husband Imran and his
relatives which is under challenge in this
writ
petition.
It
has
further
been
mentioned that Ahmed Hasan a relative of
husband Imran has also lodged a report
against the brother and brother-in-law of
the wife at P.S., Chakeri, District, Kanpur
Nagar which is registered as crime no.
1001 of 2009, under Sections 323, 324,
452, 504, 506 and 147 I.P.C. In this
compromise the husband and wife have
agreed that they will do all that is
necessary for the withdrawal of the case
so that the matter ends forever. In the case
crime no. 1001 of 2009 at P.S., Chakeri,
the police has submitted a final report in
the
Court
of
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, wherein the
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
informant of the case namely Ahmad
Hasan shall move an application or the
affidavit as the case may be. Similarly,
the informant Shahid Hussain will make
all endeavors for the disposal of the case
under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc. registered
at crime no. 997 of 2009 at P.S., Chakeri.
It has also been mentioned that since the
husband Imran is in jail in crime no. 997
of 2009 hence his bail application no.
6532 of 2010 (Imran V/s. State of U.P.
and others) has been filed in the High
Court, Allahabad, in which the hearing is
yet to take place. The above said
compromise has been signed by the
witnesses Ahmad Hasan, Shahid Hussain,
Mohd. Moin and Sageer Ahmad.

5. On 26.04.2010 the husband Imran
submitted three drafts of the above said
amount and the same were handed over to
the wife Smt. Salma Khatoon as per the
terms of the above said compromise.

6. It is clear from the above noted
facts that the parties have redressed their
grievance with the help of family friends
as well as elderly people of the Muslim
Community.

7. It has been held by the Apex
Court in Madan Mohan Abbot V/s.
State of Punjab, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.)
464 as under :-

"It is advisable in the disputes where
the question involved is of a purely
personal
nature,
the
Court
should
ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromise even in criminal proceeding
as keeping the matter alive with no
possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury which the Courts,
grossly overburdened as they are, cannot
afford and that the time so saved can be
utilized in deciding more effective and
meaningful litigation. This is a common
sense approach to the matter based on
ground of realities and bereft of the
technicalities of the law."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G.V.
Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad, 2000 SCC
(Cri.) 733 observed as under:-

"There
has
been
an
outburst
of
matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with
the result that those who could have
counselled
and
brought
about
reapproachment are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a Court of law
where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties
lose their ?young? days in chasing their
?cases? in different courts."

Hon'ble the Court further observed as
under:-

"Section 498-A was added with a
view to punish a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical
view
would
be
counter-
2 All] Imran and others V. State of U.P. and others
493
productive and would act against the
object for which this provision was added.
There is very likelihood that non-exercise
of
inherent
power
to
quash
the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice
would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter
XX-A of the Indian Penal Code."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B.S.
Joshi V/s State of Harayana A.I.R. 2003
Supreme Court 1386 referred its another
judgment rendered in State of Karnataka
V/s L. Muniswamy and others (1977) 2
SCC 699 and held as under :-

"In the exercise of this wholesome
power, the High Court is entitled to quash
proceedings if it comes to the conclusion
that ends of justice so require. It was
observed that in a criminal case, the
veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which
the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice and that the ends of justice are
higher than the ends of mere law though
justice had got to be administered
according
to
laws
made
by
the
legislature. This Court said that the
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper
realization of the object and purpose of
the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do
justice between the State and its subjects,
it would be impossible to appreciate the
width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed
that there was no reasonable likelihood of
the accused being convicted of the
offence. What would happen to the trial of
the case where the wife does not support
the imputations made in the FIR of the
type in question. As earlier noticed, now
she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was
registered
at
her
instance
due
to
temperamental differences and implied
imputations. There may be many reasons
for not supporting the imputations. It may
be either for the reason that she has
resolved disputes with her husband and
his other family members and as a result
thereof she has again started living with
her husband with whom she earlier had
differences or she has willingly parted
company and is living happily on her own
or has married someone else on earlier
marriage having been dissolved by
divorce on consent of parties or fails to
support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there
would almost be no chance of conviction.
Would it then be proper to decline to
exercise power of quashing on the ground
that it would be permitting the parties to
compound non-compoundable offences.
Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'."

8. In view of the above judgments of
the Hon?ble the Supreme Court, it is clear
that in cases where the parties have settled
their disputes amecably the High Court
should not hesitate in quashing the
criminal proceedings so as to secure the
ends of justice.

9. In the circumstances noted above
the F.I.R. of crime no. 997 of 2009 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. And 3/4
D.P. Act, P.S., Chakeri, District, Kanpur
Nagar against the petitioners Imran and
others are quashed. It is further directed
that
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar in whose Court the final
report has been submitted by the police in
crime no. 1001 of 2009 under Sections
323, 324, 452, 504, 506 and 147 I.P.C.,
P.S., Chakeri, District, Kanpur Nagar, to
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
accept final report within three days after
receiving the copy of this order.

10. The petitioner Imran, who is
confined in jail in crime no. 997/2009,
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C.
And 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S., Chakeri, District,
Kanpur Nagar is directed to be released
from jail confinement forthwith.

This writ petition is allowed as above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE KASHI NATH PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 26195 of 2010

Muneem Ahmad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suresh Chandra Verma
Sri Deepak Gaur

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
(Distribution) Order 2004-Provisions of
G.O. Dated 12.08.08- providing allotment
of fair Price Shop-Giving preference to
blind person Village Gram Panchayat-if
not available such candidate-at block
level-blind persons-challenge made on
ground of disqualification by nature to
transport, maintain stock register and
proper distribution held-misconceivedprohibition contained in clause 26 of
Sub-agency but not about taking help of
family members friend or employee to
help such disable persons to run the fair
price shop.

Held: Para 12

The physically disabled persons are a
class by themselves. The provision for
reservation of distribution of scheduled
commodities under a Government grant
as a largesses, to the physically disabled
persons is both a social welfare measure
and an affirmative action in consonance
with Section 43 of the Act of 1995 to
rehabilitate
physically
disabled
(differently abled) persons in life. The
reservation
conforms
both
to
the
constitutional scheme and the provisions
of the Act of 1995 for disabled persons.
Case law discussed:
2009(14) SCC 546, (1995) 1 SCC 85, (2009) 4
SCC 798.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra
Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for the
State respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the reservation
for blind persons to run Fair Price Shops
under the Public distribution Scheme vide
Government orders dated 17.8.2002, as
clarified by Government order dated
12.8.2008
issued
under
the
U.P.
Scheduled Commodities (Distribution)
Order 2004. He has also challenged the
Government Order dated 12.8.2008in so
far it provides for reserving the Gaon
Sabhas filling up the backlog for such
disabled persons on priority by giving
first preference to blind persons, and to
select a person from the block, if no blind
person of the village applies for allotment.
The challenge is made on the ground that
a blind person cannot run the Fair Price
Shop. The petitioner has relied upon
definition of 'Agent' and 'Person' in the
Control Order and 3 & 4, and clause 26,