SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M. Mushtaque Ahmad & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 May, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34644 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -251 Year- 2014 Thana -BETTIAH TOWN District-
WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

1. M. Mushtaque Ahmad son of M. Salimullah

2. Noor Afsan Ahmad alias Noor Afshan Kirmani wife of M. Mustaque Ahmad
Both residents of Daroosalam Manjil Compound, 4/1688, Dotpur, Aligarh, P.S.
Civil Line, District Aligarh (U.P.).

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dr. M. Nasim Alam son of Late Abdul Hakim Resident of Mahabat Toli, P.S.
Bettiah Town, District – West Champaran.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avanish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-05-2018

This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the

petitioners for quashing the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in

Bettiah (T) P. S. Case No. 251 of 2014, arising out of Complaint

Case No. 866 C of 2014 whereby the petitioners and another have

been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

2/9

2. Initially, Complaint Case No. 866 C of 2014 was filed

by the opposite party no. 2 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bettiah, West Champran on 16.05.2014. After perusing the

complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of

powers conferred under Section 156(3) of the CrPC referred the

complaint to the police for investigation whereafter Bettiah (T) P. S.

Case No. 251 of 2014 was registered under Sections 498-A, 406,

323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, according to the informant, in

brief, is that his daughter Tasneema Shahida was married to Md. Saif

Ahmad, son of the petitioners on 14.12.2012. At the time of

marriage, gifts of about Rs.15 lacs were given to her. After marriage,

she went to her sasural at Aligarh, but the behaviour of her husband

and parents-in-law was not good with her. On 25.03.2013, the

accused Md. Saif Ahmad went to Australia for his livelihood where

he studied and, thereafter, on 28.04.2013, the informant’s daughter

also went to Australia. The son of the informant was also living at

Australia during the relevant period. Subsequently, he went to Abu

Dhabi and handed over his house to his sister and brother-in-law Md.

Saif Ahmad for living therein. He also handed over his Toyota Car to

them. Thereafter, Md. Saif Ahmad started torturing his wife for
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

3/9

bringing more money from her brothers, who all are well of, but

since she did not agree to make demand from them, she was beaten

and abused. When her brother came to know about the demand being

made by her husband Md. Saif Ahmad, he sent Rs.2 lacs to him.

Thereafter, also demand continued and due to non-fulfilment of

demand, Md. Saif Ahmad threatened his wife for divorce. It has also

been alleged that the petitioners also instigated their son to make

demand of Rs.15 lacs from the daughter of the informant.

4. On completion of investigation, the police submitted

charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, who

vide impugned order dated 01.05.2015 took cognizance of the

offences and summoned the petitioners and another to face trial.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

daughter-in-law of the petitioners filed an application before the

court of Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah

under Section 2 of Dissolution of Marriage Act, 1969 for declaring

the marriage between the parties dissolved, which was registered as

Title Suit No. 29 of 2017 and vide order dated 14.06.2017, the

learned Principal Judge Family Court has declared the matrimonial

relationship between the parties as dissolved. He submitted that

during the pendency of the instant application before this Court, the

parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

4/9

decided to bring to an end all the litigations between them in terms of

compromise. He has also drawn my attention towards a joint

application filed before this Court vide IA No. 1452 of 2018 in the

present matter for quashing the prosecution in the light of

compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the private

opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 also

admitted that the entire disputes between the parties have been

resolved amicably with the intervention of common relatives and

family friends. He submitted that neither the informant nor his

daughter intend to proceed ahead with the prosecution of the accused

persons in the instant case in view of the compromise arrived at

between them.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

8. The relevant part of the compromise petition is extracted

hereunder :-

” 1. That the present application is being filed
for disposing of the present matter in terms of a
compromise entered between the parties
outside the court and already given effect to
with mutual consent of the parties and all the
litigation between the parties in terms of a
memorandum of compromise being filed before
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

5/9

this Hon’ble Court for record and for the
needful.

2. That on the intervention of well-wishers
and common-friends, the petitioners and the
opposite parties have compromised the dispute
underlying the present matter on the following
covenants:-

(i) The ex parte divorce-decree dated
14.06.2017 passed by the learned
Family Court, Bettiah nullifying
the marriage dated 14.12.2012 has
been accepted by the lady
Tasneema Shaheda and the man
Mohd. Saif Ahmad and both would
be hereinafter free to remarry or
have their own lives otherwise
without any obstacle or claim by
the other side whatsoever with
respect to the said marriage.

(ii) The parties have already exchanged
their belongings lying with the
other side given before, at the time
of or after their marriage dated
14.12.2012 and there remains no
claim whatsoever on either side
with respect to any article.

(iii) The petitioners and their son Mohd.

Saif Ahmad have already paid a
sum of rupees twenty lacs to the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

6/9

opposite party and his daughter
Tasneem Shaheda by way of one
time settlement with respect to the
cost of performance of marriage,
alimony and one lump sum
satisfaction of the lady’s claim to
maintenance decreed ex parte, so
on and so forth. Now the parties
have no any claim against the other
side of any nature whatsoever and
all their claims stand satisfied and
they relinquish all those even not
raised anywhere. Thus, both the
parties would have no rights
against the order and undertake
not to raise any claim nor litigate
any more even in future.

(iv) Out of the matrimonial dispute
between Tasneem Shaheda,
daughter of Dr. Naseem Alam and
Mohammad Saif Ahmad son of M.
Mushtaque Ahmed several civil
and criminal cases and proceedings
have been instituted by and
between the parties which have all
been decided to be set at naught.

Thus, the two criminal cases by the
lady’s father (O.P.No. 2) first being
an FIR No. 251/14 U/S 498A IPC
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

7/9

and second being Complaint Case
885C/16 U/S 384, 379 other
offences of the IPC, two civil cases
filed by the lady herself before the
Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bettiah the first being (third in all)
being an ex parte decreed
maintenance case No. 236 M of
2014 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. and the
second being the marriage
dissolution case bearing Title Sit
No. 1 of 2017; and all other matters
pending anywhere between the
parties have been decided to be
withdrawn and/or consigned by
mutual consent on the basis of the
compromise.

3. That the terms and conditions of the
compromise have been read over, fully
understood and signed in agreement by both
the parties and their counsels in the present
matter before this Hon’ble Court by way of
swearing personal affidavits annexed herewith.

4. That in the facts and circumstances
stated above, the present application deserves
to be allowed and the main quashing
application deserves to be disposed of in terms
of the said compromise by this Hon’ble Court.

5. That opposite party as well as the
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

8/9

petitioners would suffer irreparable loss
injury, if the present application is not allowed
and the matter is not disposed of by this
Hon’ble Court.

6. That the petitioners as well as the
opposite party undertake to abide by the terms
conditions of the above-said compromise and
further undertake to abide by the conditions, if
any, imposed by the Hon’ble Court for
granting this application.”

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the duly affidavited compromise petition, this Court is of the

view that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and without

any pressure. Since the prosecution relates to matrimonial dispute

and the parties have decided to part ways and terminate their

disputes, this Court is also of the view that it would be in their

interest to quash the entire criminal prosecution instead of

compelling them to fight it out in court of law. It is also a duty cast

upon the court to make efforts in the interest of the individuals in

order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully.

10. Thus, keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the

Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi Ors. Vs. Babita

Raghuvanshi Anr. [(2013) 4 SCC 58] and Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] wherein it has been held that even if
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.34644 of 2015 dt.08-05-2018

9/9

the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial

dispute and the parties have settled the same amicably without any

pressure, the court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the

CrPC may quash the criminal prosecution. Since daughter of the

informant and son of the petitioners have decided to part and a

decree of divorce has already been passed and all other disputes have

amicably been settled between the parties and an affidavit in this

regard has also been filed before this Court, in the opinion of this

Court, no useful purpose would be served by asking the parties to

contest before the court. Consequently, the impugned order dated

01.05.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah,

West Champaran in Bettiah (T) P. S. Case No. 251 of 2014 and the

entire criminal proceedings arising out of said case are hereby

quashed.

11. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

Kanchan/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2018
Transmission 14.05.2018
Date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh