Allahabad High Court
Mahtab Alam And 6 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37843 of 2018
Applicant :- Mahtab Alam And 6 Ors
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Tapan Kumar Mishra,Sundeep Agarwal,Sundeep Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Trivedi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2
2. By means of this present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.5.2018 and the charge-sheet dated 25.1.2018 along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.1677 of 2018, (State Vs. Mahtab and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Meerut arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2017.
3. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2018 had passed interim order qua to the applicant nos.2 to 7. However, prayers were rejected qua to applicant no.1.
4. During pendency of this application, parties have entered into compromise and a draft of Rs. 4 Lakhs was prepared in favour of the complainant and presently it is lying in the records of learned trial court with the direction that it would be released only if the proceedings are quashed.
5. On 9.6. 2022, this Court has passed following order:
"Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present petition has been settled outside the Court and a settlement dated 11.03.2019 has been arrived at between the parties concerned.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly requested that the said compromise deed dated 11.03.2019 be remitted to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for due verification.
It is further submitted that the parties to the compromise would appear before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 15.06.2022 along with computer generated copy of this order supported by an affidavit.
On receipt of this order, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut shall proceed to verify the compromise deed dated 11.03.2019 and submit a report to this Court within next one week.
List this petition on 29.06.2022 along with the Report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Till the next date of listing, interim order, already operating shall continue to operate in the matter."
6. In pursuance of above order,a report has been submitted by learned C.J.M. whereby the compromise agreement was verified. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the complainant prayed that the entire proceedings against the applicants be quashed so that the draft be released in favour of the complainant.
Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :-
7. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh (supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under Section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point, in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others : (2019)5 SCC 688, after considering earlier judgments Gian Singh (supra); State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (supra); State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J. Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh: (2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 5 SCC 570, clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-
"15 Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, 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 hereinabove;
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 impart 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."
8. In the present case vide order dated 24.10.2018, this application is surviving only qua to applicant nos.2 to 7.
9. In view of the above discussions and considering that parties have entered into compromise, criminal proceedings pending against applicant nos.2 to 7 (details of which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the order) are hereby quashed and the learned trial court is directed to release the draft in favour of the complainant before it is expired.
10. So far as applicant no.1, Mahtab Alam is concerned, this application has been rejected, therefore, no relief could be granted in the present application. However, applicant no.1 is at liberty to approach this Court afresh by filing an appropriate application in view of the changed circumstances.
11. With the aforesaid direction, this application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022
SB
