# Iqbal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 700
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7878 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49106
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Constitution of India-
Article 226- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 154- First Information
Report-Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
and Dowry Prohibition Act- Section 3⁄4-
Quashing
of
F.I.R
on
basis
of
Compromise- Marital dispute has been
culminated
into
lodgement
of
the
impugned F.I.R. registered in aforesaid
case crime. The petitioners are alleged
to have committed the offence under
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C,
out of those five Sections, Sections 323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable.
Although,
Sections
354
read
with
Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are not compoundable
but
if
the
parties
wants
to
live
peacefully married life, the same does
not make a bar- criminal proceedings of
private nature can be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has
concluded in conviction, in case, if the
parties wants to resolve their dispute,
which is not of serious nature and the
dispute is not one, which is opposed to
public policy. The powers vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution are much
more than under Section 482 Cr.P.C and
therefore by exercising the said powers,
this Court can quashed the F.I.R- It is
inherent powers of the High Court, in
such matters that can be invoked where
the Court is satisfied that the parties
have willingly decided to bury their
dispute-
The
offence
stems
out
discordance, which is a reason for
lodging of the impugned F.I.R, but it is
shown that the respondent no.3/first
informant decided to give up the case
and therefore, as the offence under
Section
323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable, the same are permitted
as compounded. So far as the Sections
376, 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot
be said that any offence is committed as
the victim has
not been medically
examined and also in view of the fact
that once the parties have decided that
they do not wish to contest the matter,
the F.I.R. ought to have be quashed.

Settled
law
that
where
the
criminal
prosecution arises out of a private or personal
dispute, including that arising out of marital
discord, the offences are not serious or grave,
are not opposed to public policy and the
parties have amicably decided to compromise
the matter, then under the exercise of it's
powers under Article 226 or under Section
482 of the Cr.Pc , the High Court can quash
the F.I.R / criminal proceedings even in noncompoundable offences. (Para 4, 6, 8)

Criminal Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition, namely, Writ-C No. 122 of 2022,
thus, stands dismissed.

33. There will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7878 of 2022

Iqbal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya, Sri H.N.
Shukla

Criminal Law- Constitution of India-
Article 226- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 154- First Information
Report-Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
and Dowry Prohibition Act- Section 3⁄4-
Quashing
of
F.I.R
on
basis
of
Compromise- Marital dispute has been
culminated
into
lodgement
of
the
impugned F.I.R. registered in aforesaid
case crime. The petitioners are alleged
to have committed the offence under
Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C,
out of those five Sections, Sections 323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable.
Although,
Sections
354
read
with
Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are not compoundable
but
if
the
parties
wants
to
live
peacefully married life, the same does
not make a bar- criminal proceedings of
private nature can be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has
concluded in conviction, in case, if the
parties wants to resolve their dispute,
which is not of serious nature and the
dispute is not one, which is opposed to
public policy. The powers vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution are much
more than under Section 482 Cr.P.C and
therefore by exercising the said powers,
this Court can quashed the F.I.R- It is
inherent powers of the High Court, in
such matters that can be invoked where
the Court is satisfied that the parties
have willingly decided to bury their
dispute-
The
offence
stems
out
discordance, which is a reason for
lodging of the impugned F.I.R, but it is
shown that the respondent no.3/first
informant decided to give up the case
and therefore, as the offence under
Section
323,
504,
506
I.P.C.
are
compoundable, the same are permitted
as compounded. So far as the Sections
376, 354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot
be said that any offence is committed as
the victim has
not been medically
examined and also in view of the fact
that once the parties have decided that
they do not wish to contest the matter,
the F.I.R. ought to have be quashed.

Settled
law
that
where
the
criminal
prosecution arises out of a private or personal
dispute, including that arising out of marital
discord, the offences are not serious or grave,
are not opposed to public policy and the
parties have amicably decided to compromise
the matter, then under the exercise of it's
powers under Article 226 or under Section
482 of the Cr.Pc , the High Court can quash
the F.I.R / criminal proceedings even in noncompoundable offences. (Para 4, 6, 8)

Criminal Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. Vs Babita
Raghuvanshi & anr.,(2013) 4 SCC 58

2. Rajendra Bhagat Vs St. of Jhar. @ Anr, 2022
Live Law (SC) 34
9 All. Iqbal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
701
3. Bitan Sengupta Vs St. of W.B, (2018) 18 SCC
366

4. B.S.Joshi Vs St. of Har., (2003) 4 SCC 675

5. Rajeev Kourav Vs Baisahab MANU 0163 SC
2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajay
Kumar Maurya, learned counsel, who has
put in appearance on behalf of the
respondent no.3.

2. By way of this petition, the
accused-petitioners prays for quashment of
the impugned first information report dated
21.04.2022 registered in Case Crime No.
93 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mainather,
District Moradabad and also for staying his
arrest in respect of the aforesaid first
information report.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
as well as learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 have jointly submitted that
the matrimonial discord between the parties
have been amicably settled and that the
respondent no.3 does not to proceed with
the matter. In this regard, short counter
affidavit has also been filed by the
respondent no.3 and thus the impugned
F.I.R. may be quashed.

4.

Marital
dispute
has
been
culminated into lodgement of the impugned
F.I.R. dated 21.04.2022 registered in
aforesaid case crime. The petitioners are
alleged to have committed the offence
under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C, out of those five Sections, Sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are compoundable.
Although, Sections 354 read with Section
376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act are not compoundable but if the parties
wants to live peacefully married life, the
same
does
not
make
a
bar.
The
Investigation papers has been produced by
Counsel for the State, which shows that no
offence under Sections 376, 354 I.P.C. is
made out against the petitioners.

5. Prima facie, looking to the F.I.R.,
investigation is continuing, although short
counter affidavit filed by the counsel for
the respondent no.3 contains the averments
that the proceedings initiated by the wife in
a very haste manner, which may not be
permitted to be carried on, as the matter has
been settled between the parties and thus
the F.I.R. may be quashed.

6. The Gujarat High Court has
recently held that criminal proceedings of
private nature can be quashed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. even if the trial has
concluded in conviction, in case, if the
parties wants to resolve their dispute, which
is not of serious nature and the dispute is
not one, which is opposed to public policy.
The powers vested under Article 226 of the
Constitution are much more than under
Section 482 Cr.P.C and therefore by
exercising the said powers, this Court can
quashed the F.I.R.

7. The Apex Court Judgements
rendered
in
the
matter
of
Jitendra
Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi and another reported in
(2013) 4 SCC 58, Rajendra Bhagat Vs.
State of Jharkhand @ Anr, 2022 Live Law
(SC) 34, Bitan Sengupta Vs. State of West
Bengal (2018) 18 SCC 366, B.S.Joshi Vs.
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 will
also enure for the benefit of the present
accused-petitioners. The Judgement of this
Court, though of single Judge rendered in
the matter of Pramod and another Vs.
State of U.P. and another decided on
23.02.2021 will also enure for the benefit
of the accused-petitioners. It is inherent
powers of the High Court, in such matters
that can be invoked where the Court is
satisfied that the parties have willingly
decided to bury their dispute.

8. It is very clear that the petitioners
have prima facie committed the said
offence. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that
the same was registered on the basis that
cognizable offence is disclosed and thus
there is no force in the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners that no
cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioners.
The
fact
that
the
first
informant/respondent no.3 as well as the
petitioners have compromised the matter
before the village peoples, who have also
given an affidavit, which are annexed
collectively as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition. As the first informant/respondent
no.3 has not been medically examined by
the police and therefore the provisions of
Section 376 I.P.C. as alleged cannot be said
to be made out. The offence stems out
discordance, which is a reason for lodging
of the impugned F.I.R, but it is shown that
the respondent no.3/first informant decided
to give up the case and therefore, as the
offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
are compoundable, the same are permitted
as compounded. So far as the Sections 376,
354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be said
that any offence is committed as the victim
has not been medically examined and also
in view of the fact that once the parties
have decided that they do not wish to
contest the matter, the F.I.R. ought to have
be quashed. The Judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajeev
Kourav Vs. Baisahab MANU 0163 SC
2022 will also enure for the benefit of the
present petitioners.

9. In view of above, the first
information report dated 21.04.2022 for the
offence committed on 01.10.2021 i.e.
before six months, registered in Case Crime
No. 93 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Mainather, District Moradabad, is quashed.

10. The petition is allowed.

11. The Police officials shall not take
any further steps in the matter.

12. We are thankful to Sri Sunil
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4 for
rendering their assistance to this Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 702
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2022

Manoj Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Sri Durgesh Kumar
Singh, Sri Shyam Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajendra Singh