Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9346 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26088 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari,Janardan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.446 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Mau pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as Case No.2657/2002.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the son-in-law of opposite party no.2 and his marriage was performed with the daughter of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 12/13.6.2002 against the applicant under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in which after investigation charge sheet was submitted and the trial of the case was pending but in the meantime the applicant i.e. the husband and the daughter of opposite party no.2 i.e. wife of the applicant have amicably settled their dispute and in this regard, a compromise was executed between them. He next submitted that the applicant challenged the proceedings pending against him before this Court and on 23.1.2020 the coordinate Bench of this Court referred the matter to the court below with a direction that the court below will verify the compromise alleged to have been executed between the parties and has also directed the parties to appear before the court below. He next submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant and the daughter of opposite party no.2 i.e. husband and wife appeared before the court below on 17.2.2020 and the court below on the same day verified the compromise executed between the parties. He next submitted that the verification order dated 17.2.2020 passed by the court below has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.2.2020 filed in support of the present application. He next submitted that the present dispute is purely matrimonial one and the husband and the wife i.e. applicant and daughter of opposite party no.2 have already amicably settled their dispute, therefore the proceedings pending against the applicant may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. He next submitted that the daughter of opposite party no.2 i.e. the victim in the present case is also having no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 17.2.2020, which has been duly verified by he court below, therefore there is no hindrance in quashing the proceedings pending against the applicant on the basis of compromise dated 17.2.2020.

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant with the contention that the informant is the father of the victim and the compromise was executed between the applicant and his wife i.e. daughter of opposite party no2, therefore it would not be desirable to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the applicant and his wife i.e. daughter of opposite party no.2, but he could not dispute the fact that the daughter of opposite party no.2 is the wife of the applicant, who is the victim in the present case and both husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise dated 17.2.2020 which has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and in this regard, verification order of the court below is on record and as per compromise dated 17.2.2020 the daughter of opposite party no.2 i.e. the victim in the present case is not having any objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. The record shows that the applicant is the husband of the daughter of opposite party no.2 and due to marital discord between husband and wife, opposite party no.2, the father of the wife of the applicant, lodged FIR against the applicant in the year 2002 in which after investigation charge sheet was submitted but trial of the case could not be proceeded and in the meantime the applicant in the year 2017 filed the instant application challenging the proceedings pending against him before the court below. On 23.1.2020 the coordinate Bench of this Court directed the court below to verify the compromise executed between the parties and has also directed the husband and wife i.e. the applicant and daughter of opposite party no.2 to appear before the court below. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant and the daughter of opposite party no.2 i.e. husband and wife appeared before the court below on 17.2.2020 and the court below on the same day verified the compromise executed between the parties. The order dated 17.2.2020 passed by the court below shows that the daughter of opposite party no.2 appeared before the court below and she accepted the compromise executed between her and the applicant (her husband). Therefore, the compromise executed between the parties has now been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

As the present dispute is purely matrimonial one and both the parties i.e. husband and wife have already amicably settled their dispute, therefore the proceedings pending against the applicant can be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

The present matter relates to the provisions of Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act,, in which offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable as per Section 320 CrPC but a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:-

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

(ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

(iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

(iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein-above;

(v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

Again, recently the Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgements observed in para-19 as follows:-

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

Thus, from the perusal of the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute can be quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise executed between the parties, while exercising its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offences.

In the present matter, both husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute on the basis of compromise dated 17.2.2020 which has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and the wife herself does not want to proceed the matter further and she is not having any objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 17.2.2020 executed between the parties, therefore, in my view the proceedings pending against the applicant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement dated 17.2.2020 executed between the parties.

In view of above, the proceedings of Case Crime No.446 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Mau pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau as Case No.2657/2002, is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

SP