Pramod Kumar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11029 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 81 AFR
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1863 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh,Sachin Malik
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheeraj Singh (Bohra)
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Case No.14943 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar and others vs. State) in view of the charge sheet dated 9.9.2020 arising out of case crime no.29 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Meerut.

In compliance of the order dated 22.7.2021 passed by this Court, applicant no.1-Pramod Kumar and his son Vipin Kumar has brought two drafts before this Court. The first draft is of Rs.9,00,000/- dated 24.8.2021 bearing Draft No.911254 in the name of Tanu Sharma (opposite party no.2) and the second draft is of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 24.8.2021 bearing Draft No.911253 in the name of Tanu Sharma (opposite party no.2). The total sum of two drafts is Rs.15,00,000/-. The same has been handed over to opposite party no.2 Tanu Sharma by the applicants before this Court which was acknowledged by Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned AGA. The photostat copy of both the drafts is being kept on the record in the file of the case as well as in the file of learned AGA.

Opposite party no.2 Tanu Sharma has stated before the Court that she will withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against Vipin Kumar, his father Pramod Kumar (applicant no.1) and his family members pending before any court of law and in future also she will not file any case against them.

The same assurance has been given by the father of Tanu Sharma namely Sri Satya Prakash Sharma.

Sri Pramod Kumar and his son Vipin Kumar have also stated before this Court that from today they will also not file any criminal or civil case against Tanu Sharma and her father Sri Satya Prakash Sharma or against any family members before any court of law and withdraw all criminal and civil cases filed against Tanu Sharma, Satya Prakash Sharma and other family members in any court of law.

Vipin Kumar and Tanu Sharma jointly state before the Court that from today they will live separately and live their independent life and nobody will interfere in any manner in their peaceful life and they will be free to live independently on their own sweet will anywhere they wants.

Learned counsel for the parties has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly is matrimonial private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and in view of the statement/compromise made by Vipin Kumar as well as opposite party no.2 and the observation made above, the entire proceedings of Case No.14943 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar and others vs. State), arising out of case crime no.29 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Meerut is hereby quashed and both the parties are free to live their independent life.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 31.8.2021

SP