Allahabad High Court: Court Not Refrained From Quashing Proceedings On Mere Mention Of A Serious Offence Section
|The Allahabad High Court quashed the entire proceedings related to a matrimonial dispute and a dowry case, accepting a settlement reached between the parties through mediation.
The Allahabad High Court held that the Court is not refrained from quashing a criminal proceeding merely because a Section of serious offences is mentioned, if the material on record does not establish offences under that Section.
The Court quashed the entire proceedings related to a matrimonial dispute and a dowry case, accepting a settlement reached between the parties through mediation.
A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that “it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out…Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the petitioners, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.”
Advocate Sajjad Husain appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Ram Singh represented the Opposite Party.
Brief Facts
The Applicant sought to quash the entire proceedings of a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court. They also sought to quash the summoning Order issued by the Magistrate and a revisional Order passed by the Sessions Court.
The matter was referred to the mediation centre of the Court via an Order. Both parties participated in the mediation proceedings, which resulted in a successful mediation and the execution of a settlement agreement.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court reiterated the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), wherein it was held, “High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
The Bench noted, “Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through process of mediation.”
Consequently, the Court ordered that “the entire proceedings of complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate and impugned summoning order passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate and also the revisional order passed by Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, are hereby quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Santosh Rajbhar & Ors. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:26885)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Sajjad Husain and Tauqueer Alam
Opposite Party: Advocate Ram Singh