Roshan Kumar Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3427 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3407 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Roshan Kumar Singh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Ranjan Krishna Pandey, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of O.P. no.2, which is taken on record.

Applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash charge sheet dated 12.10.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.14220 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0652 of 2017 under Section 498-A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station-Noida Section-39, District-Gautambudh Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.-2, Gautambudh Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with O.P. no. 2 on 20.04.2017 at Arya Samaj Temple, Surajpur, Gautambudh Nagar and after marriage some dispute arose between them due to misunderstanding and they started living separately. Consequently, opposite party no. 2 had lodged a criminal case against the applicant no. 1 registered as Case Crime No.0652 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 whereas applicant no.1 had lodged a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the C.M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Due to intervention of well wishers of both the parties, they have amicably settled the matter and decided to take divorce with mutual consent.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and in this regard order dated 09.02.2021 has been passed by this Court for verification of compromise application filed before the Court below. Order dated 09.02.2021 is reproduced below :

"Heard learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no.14220 of 2019 (State Vs. Roshan and others) arising out of case crime no.0652 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Noida, Sector-39, District - Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh Nagar in terms of compromise.

It is submitted that both the parties have settled the dispute out of Court. Case relates to matrimonial dispute. Continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 8.9.2020. The said compromise will be filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as annexure-7 to the application. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes to inform the opposite party no.2 to remain present before the court concerned for verification of the said compromise. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed 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.

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

List this case on 15.3.2021 before the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes to ensure the presence of both the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 23.2.2021 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-7 to the application to the court concerned within three days.

Parties are also directed to produce the copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants.

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of 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."

In compliance of aforesaid order, learned C.J.M. has submitted report dated 30.02.2021 (Flag 'A') stating therein that the compromise was read and understood by both the parties, who have made their signatures on the compromise before the concerned Court below. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants along with certified copy of compromise application (memo of understanding) dated 08.09.2020 and order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the concerned Court below whereby compromise has been verified.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this application and the verification report filed by the applicants, it appears that due to intervention of well wishers and the family member, both the parties have entered into compromise and not only buried the hatchet but also have decided to live peacefully in future.

Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 has admitted that both the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise and O.P. no.2 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants any further.

On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants prays for quashing of the aforesaid case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases :-

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

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

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

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2017 SC 4843, Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. of the said judgment summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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 recognises 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 compliant 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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."

With the assistance of aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending, inasmuch as, both the parties have buried the hatchet, and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove guilt of the accused.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the Court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the entire proceeding of aforesaid case, is hereby quashed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court forthwith for follow up action.

Order Date :- 15.3.2021

Manish Himwan