Vivek Saxena And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9795 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17498 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Vivek Saxena And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava,Atul Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Short counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 64575 of 2017 as well as the charge sheet dated 16.04.2017 including the summoning order dated 09.11.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 544 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 26th February, 2016 with Hindu rites and ritual. Thereafter, there was certain dispute arose in between the parties and instant FIR was lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against the applicants. He submits that thereafter parties entered into compromise and filed an application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein a decree was passed on 16.10.2018 and mutual divorce was decreed.

He submits that compromise was entered and on mutual consent, decreed for divorce between the parties was passed and as such nothing remains between the parties to be adjudicated further.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has drawn attention towards the para 5, 6 and 7 of the short counter affidavit and agreed with the contention of the counsel for the applicant. Decree of divorce has been passed as per the mutual consent of the parties. He submits that no dispute remains in between the parties.

On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection with the submission aforesaid.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there was matrimonial dispute and that was settled by way of mutual agreement and court has decreed the divorce vide order dated 16.10.2018 on the basis of mutual consent between the parties. In the decree order, it has also been mentioned that there is no dispute remains for adjudication between the parties and they have settled the dispute.

Apart from above submission of learned counsel for the applicants, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:

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.

vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]

In the aforesaid judgments, 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law propounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others Vs. State of Gujarat And Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;

16.2. 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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

16.4. 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;

16.5. 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;

16.6. 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 appropriately 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;

16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. 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;

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

In such view of the submission and settled proposition of law and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 64575 of 2017 as well as the charge sheet dated 16.04.2017 including the summoning order dated 09.11.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 544 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 10.8.2022

A.Kr.