Allahabad High Court
Vishal Gupta And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Umesh Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13717 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vishal Gupta And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Komal Prasad,Santosh Kumar Shukla,Shyam Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Shri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri S.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A.-I for State respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 and Shri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate appearing for respondent no.4.
This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R dated 13.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0023 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kamla Nagar, District-Agra.
This Court vide order dated 1.12.2020 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre considering the dispute to be of matrimonial nature and interim protection was accorded to the petitioners.
As per the Mediation Centre report dated 25.3.2021, parties have entered into settlement agreement on 19.03.2021. Para 7 of the settlement agreement reads as such:
"7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That both the parties are agreed to file a case for mutual divorce u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court, Agra and thereafter the certified copy of the same shall be produced before this Mediation Centre on the next date.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the applicant-husband shall pay a permanent alimony including Stridhan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to the wife by way of demand draft in installments.
c) That today i.e. 19.03.2021, Vishal Gupta (Petitioner No.1- husband) produce a demand draft bearing no. 389395 dated 17.03.2021 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs. 7,50,000/- (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) issued in favour of Sanchita Gupta, which is being kept in the file of the Mediation Centre and shall be handed over to the wife when she will appear before the Centre with the certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition at the time of final settlement.
d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 7,50,000/- (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid by Vishal Gupta (Petitioner no.1- husband), to Smt. Sanchita Gupta (Respondent No. 4-Wife) at the time of final judgment in Family Court, Agra, by way of demand draft of a nationalized bank.
e) That in the meantime the cases (if any) filed by either of the party against each other in any competent Court shall be kept in abeyance.
f) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall appear again before the Centre on 26.03.2021."
Shri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant has no objection, in case the first information report is quashed as per the settlement.
It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 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."
The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No. 0023 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kamla Nagar, District-Agra, are quashed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
S.Verma
