Smt. Chandni Jain And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1151 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3001 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Chandni Jain And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhai Saxena,Ashutosh
 
Connected with 
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37639 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Chandnii Jain And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhai Saxena,Ashutosh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

Application U/s 482 No.3001 of 2017 has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3819 of 2016 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Chandni Jain and others), under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur.

Application U/s 482 No. 37639 of 2016 has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4153 of 2016 (Manoj Kumar vs. Chandni Jain and others), under Sections 323, 504, 452, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings between the same parties pertaining to Case No. 4618 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 312, 377 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2016, Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. The said order is being quoted herein below :-

"Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in Court today, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 4618 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 312 and 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Bilashpur, District - Rampur (State Vs. Kishan Jain and others), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

This is the second application filed by the present applicants and in the first application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicants, in which, following order was passed :

"Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party is taken on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.76 of 2017 (Chandani Jain Vs. Krishna Kumar Jain and Others) under sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of parties that the present application under section 482 has been filed on the basis of compromise and this Court directed to verify the same and the compromise was duly verified by the learned court below on 25.04.2019. A copy of verification order dated 25.04.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that proceedings pending before the court below be quashed as the offence was neither heinous nor involved any moral turpitude, rather only personal, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that;

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the parties have buried their hatchet under a compromise authenticity of which is not disputed. The offence is neither heinous nor it involved any moral turpitude, dispute if any was personal, which has now been amicably settled. In view of aforesaid compromise, conviction is ruled out, prosecution of the applicant would be an abuse of the process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed.

The application is accordingly, allowed.

The entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2017 (Chandani Jain Vs. Krishna Kumar Jain and Others), under sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur, are quashed.

The party is permitted to file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court before the court concerned, who shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :

(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;

(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;

(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;

In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the same parties and the proceedings were quashed by means of Application U/s 482 No. 15981 of 2020 vide order dated 23.11.2020. Hence, the present proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute between the same parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

Accordingly, the proceeding in Case No. 4618 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 312 and 377 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Bilashpur, District - Rampur (State Vs. Kishan Jain and others), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, is hereby quashed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Accordingly, the present proceedings is also as a result of matrimonial dispute between the parties, in which, the parties have already entered into compromise. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3819 of 2016 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Chandni Jain and others), under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur and Complaint Case No. 4153 of 2016 (Manoj Kumar vs. Chandni Jain and others), under Sections 323, 504, 452, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur, are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

Order Date :- 20.1.2021

Priya