Allahabad High Court
Krishna Murari Verma And Another vs State Of ... on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mohd. Aslam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5267 of 2022
Petitioner :- Krishna Murari Verma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Home Lko.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rachit Sondhi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhinav Pankaj,Mandhata Samrat,Smt. Shikha Srivastava
AND
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5403 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Up Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mandhata Samrat
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Both the writ petitions are being decided by the common order.
The impugned F.I.R./Case Crime No.0349/2022, under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Gazipur, District- Lucknow has been assailed.
During pendency of these writ petitions and before filing of the charge-sheet the parties in dispute have entered into compromise as the original copy of the compromise deed has been filed with the writ petition. The parties have stated before the Court that they are not willing to contest the case as they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. The original compromise deed was directed to be verified by the Senior Registrar by this Court and the Senior Registrar of this Court vide report dated 28.11.2022 verified the parties and contents of the compromise deed, which reads as under:-
"Vide Hon'ble Court's order dated 21.11.2022, parties of both the connected petitions were directed to appear today before the undersigned for verification of compromise deed. The original compromise deed dated 20.11.2022 is annexed as Annexure No.A-01 to C.M. Application No. nil filed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5267 of 2022.
Today, petitioners of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5267 of 2022 namely (1) Krishna Murari Verma s/o Prem Shankar and (2) Renu Srivastava w/o Krishna Murari Verma along with their learned counsel Shri Rachit Sondhi, Advocate and petitioner of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.5403 of 2022 Rahul Srivastava s/o Krishna Murari Verma along with his learnd counsel Sri Ram chandra Verma, Advocate and respondent no.4 of both the writ petition i.e. Mohita Srivastava d/o Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, w/o Rahul Srivastava along with her learned counsel Sri Abhinav Pankaj, Advocate, are present before me. Vakalatnama of both the counsels are on record. The proof of identity i.e. Aadhar Card is produced by all the partie, at the time of verification.
The contents of said compromise deed have been read over and explained to both the parties to the compromise deed and they have stated that they have executed the same according to their free will and as a token thereof they have affixed their photographs, put L.T.Is./R.T.Is. and signatures, which are duly attested and verified by their respective counsels.
In view of the said facts, the compromise between petitioners of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5267 of 2022 namely (1) Krishna Murari Verma s/o Prem Shankar and (2) Renu Srivastava w/o Krishna Murari Verma along with their learned counsel Shri Rachit Sondhi, Advocate and petitioner of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no.5403 of 2022 Rahul Srivastava s/o Krishna Murari Verma and respondent no.4 of both the writ petition i.e. Mohit Srivastava d/o Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, w/o Rahul Srivastava is being verified by me today i.e. 28th day of November, 2022.
The report is submitted before Hon'ble Court for orders."
Attention has been drawn towards the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR above mentioned."
In light of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and also in view of the fact that the parties have entered into compromise as well as the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra), we are of the considered opinion that if the parties are not willing to contest the matrimonial dispute and have settled such dispute amicably, this Court should accept that settlement.
Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, the impugned F.I.R./Case Crime No.0349/2022, under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 325, 504, 506, 307, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Gazipur, District- Lucknow is set aside.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022
Anil K. Sharma
(Mohd. Aslam, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)
