Yaseen @ Mohd. Yaseen And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9347 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5482 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Yaseen @ Mohd. Yaseen And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record of the case.

The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 3355/2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali District Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 Sana (wife) and applicant no.2 is the brother of applicant no.1. The marriage of applicant no.1 was performed with opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 10.8.2015 against the applicant under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in which after investigation, charge sheet was submitted but during the course of the trial, applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 i.e. husband and wife on 15.3.2016 have amicably settled their dispute and in this regard, a compromise has been executed between the parties, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. He next submitted that from the compromise dated 15.3.2016 it reflects that both the parties with mutual understanding separated from each other and as the parties are Muslim they have given divorce to each other with the understanding that they will not interfere with the life of each other. He next submitted that the compromise dated 15.3.2016 further shows that opposite party no.2, the informant of the case, is having no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicants be quashed on the basis of the compromise. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant challenged the proceedings pending against him before this Court and on 7.2.2020 and a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the court below to verify the compromise executed between the parties and applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 were also directed to appear before the court below. He next submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, both husband and wife appeared before the court below and moved an application for verification of the compromise on 6.3.2020 and the court below, on the same day, after due verification, passed an order, which has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.5.2022 filed in support of the present application, which clearly shows that the compromise executed between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 has been duly verified by the court below. He next submitted that as both husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute and there is no dispute left between them and even opposite party no.2 is not having any objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise, therefore the proceedings pending against the applicant may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Per contra, learned AGA although submitted that perusal of the FIR and other documents on record prima facie discloses offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, but he could not dispute the fact that on 15.3.2016 applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 i.e. husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and in this regard, a compromise has been executed between the parties, which has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and therefore, he 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 FIR in the present case was lodged on 10.8.2015 by opposite party no.2 against the applicant in which after investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken by the court below and summons were issued to the applicant but in the meantime on 15.3.2016 both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have also filed a compromise in this regard, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. The compromise dated 15.3.2016 executed between the parties has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Therefore, it appears that there is no dispute left between the parties and even opposite party no.2 is not having any objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 15.3.2016 executed between the parties.

The present matter relates to the provisions of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 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.

As, present dispute is purely matrimonial one and both husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and there is no dispute left between them and both the parties have peacefully separated according to their own wish and even opposite party no.2, the informant, is not having any objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 15.3.2016 executed between the parties, therefore, in my view the proceedings pending against the applicant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement dated 15.3.2016 executed between the parties.

In view of above, the proceedings of Case No. 3355/2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali District Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

SP