Vidit Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 23744 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174807
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39250 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vidit Agarwal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avneesh Tripathi
 
Connected with
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25978 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Garg And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avneesh Tripathi
 
And
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37153 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Yamini Mandelia
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avneesh Tripathi
 
And
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26050 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Garg And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avneesh Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Joint affidavit filed by parties is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record on board.

3. All the aforementioned four captioned cases are arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties. The record reveals that opposite party No. 2, namely, Akriti (wife) has resorted to two remedies i.e. police case and complaint case. An FIR, being Case Crime No. 0009 of 2022 dated 12.2.2022, has been lodged levelling allegation against her husband (applicant No. 1) and his family members (in-laws) of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. Arising out of Case Crime No. 0009 of 2022, following two applications under Section 482 CrPC have been preferred before this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding :-

(i) Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 39250 of 2022 (Vidit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed by the husband.

(ii) Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 26050 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Garg and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) filed by father-in-law and mother-in-law.

4. Smt. Akriti Gupta (wife) has moved a complaint as well against her in-laws including husband. In the aforesaid complaint, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued process under Section 498A, 323, 406 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide impugned order dated 9.5.2022. Arising out of aforementioned complaint No. 2701 of 2022, following two Criminal Misc. Application under Sections 482 CrPC have been preferred to quash the summoning order and entire proceeding in Complaint Case :-

(i) Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 25978 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Garg and another Vs. State of U.P. and another).

(ii) Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 37153 of 2022 (Yamini Mandelia Vs. State of U.P. and another).

5. In this view of the matter, all the aforesaid four applications filed under Section 482 CrPC are being considered and decided finally, on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, by a common order of the date passed by this Court inasmuch as in all the aforementioned four applications, the complainant/first informant is common, who has lodged FIR as well as moved complaint leveling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry.

6. For convenience, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39250 of 2022 (Vidit Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and another) is being taken up as leading case, which has been filed by applicant (husband) invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the Charge Sheet No. 23/2022 dated 14.03.2022 and Summoning Order dated 31.05.2022 as well as entire proceeding in Case No. 6567 of 2022 (State Vs. Vidit and Others), under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 009 of 2022, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Meerut, pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court (Offence against Women), Meerut.

7. Initially, vide order dated 22.2.2023, the matter was referred to the mediation centre to explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties, however, same could not be succeeded, which is evident from the report dated 16.7.2023 submitted by the Registrar of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. During pendency of the present proceeding, parties have amicably settled their dispute and filed a joint affidavit dated 16.8.2023. In pursuance of the order dated 17.8.2023, the applicant namely Vidit Agarwal (husband) and opposite party No. 2, Akriti Gupta (wife) are personally present today before this Court and have been identified by their respective counsel.

8. This Court has personally interacted with Vidit Agarwal (husband) and Akriti Gupta (wife), in presence of their respective counsel and learned A.G.A., in order to authenticate the sanctity of joint affidavit filed by them in nature of compromise intending to settle their matrimonial discord amicably and withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other. Mr. Vidit Agarwal (husband) has stated that, in the present scenario, living together being married couple is not possible, therefore, they ( he and wife) have decided to live separately and, accordingly, both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement. The terms and conditions of the compromise, as arrived at between the parties, have already been averred in the joint affidavit dated 16.8.2023. He has further stated that he voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress, therefore, instant application may be decided on the terms and conditions of the compromise.

9. Respondent No. 2, Akriti Gupta (wife), nodded the factum of compromise and stated that she has voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and coercion. She understood the contents of the compromise, which has been filed in the nature of joint affidavit before this Court, and is ready to withdraw all the criminal cases as per terms and conditions as specifically stated in paragraphs No. 7 to 11 of the joint affidavit. She has further stated that she is no more interested to prosecute the applicant and his family members, in case, the terms and conditions of compromise is fulfilled.

10. In the instant matter i.e. Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 39250 of 2022 (Vidit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another), joint affidavit dated 16.08.2023 has been filed. Likewise, in all other matters, separate joint affidavits have been filed by the parties containing the same averments as mentioned in the joint affidavit dated 16.8.2023. For ready reference and to avoid the repetition of the matters, the relevant paragraph of the joint affidavit i.e. paragraph No. 4 to 11, which are common in all the four matters, are being reproduced hereunder:

?4. That the Vidit Aggarwal/deponent no.1 and Aakriti Gupta/ deponent no.2 both shall file a Divorce Petition U/S- 13 B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolving of their marriage on mutual consent.

5. That Aakriti Gupta/deponent no.2 shall withdraw all the pending cases against Vidit Aggarwal/deponent no.1 and his family members pending before the learned Trial Courts concerned. The details of pending cases are as follows:

i. Case Crime No. 9/2022, Case No. 6567/2022, State Vs. Vidit and another, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and U/s-3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut.

ii. Case No.93/9/2022, Smt. Aakriti Gupta Vs. Vidit Aggarwal and others, U/s-12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

iii. Case No.209/2022, Smt. Aakriti Gupta Vs. Vs. Vidit Aggarwal, U/s-125 CrPC, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

iv. Case No.2701/2022, Smt. Aakriti Gupta Vs. Vidit Aggarwal, U/s -406, 120B IPC, Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

6. That Dr. V.K. Garg, Father of Vidit Aggarwal, had filed Case No.6349/2021, Dr. Vinod Garg Vs. Vidit Aggarwal and others, Under Section-12 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut. Dr. V.K. Garg shall withdraw the above said proceedings pending before the court of Additional City Magistrate, Meerut.

7. That an amount of Rs. 32,50,000/- was transferred by the parents of Aakriti Gupta/deponent no.2 in the joint bank account of deponents bearing Account No. 39800206888 maintained with State Bank of India, Western Kutchery Road Branch- Meerut. Eventually, four fixed deposits- for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- each were made out of the aforesaid amount deposited in the aforesaid bank account. The aforesaid bank account is a joint account in the name of deponents. It has been agreed upon between the deponents that prior to filing of the proposed petition u/s 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, Vidit Aggarwal /deponent no.1 shall have no objection and shall extend full cooperation in liquidating the four FDs by the deponent no.2 made out of the amount so deposited in account bearing number 39800206888 maintained with State Bank of India, Western Kutchery Road Branch, Meerut. It has been further agreed between the parties that after liquidation of the said FDs Aakriti Gupta shall be fully entitled to withdraw all the proceeds in Bank A/C No. 39800206888 maintained with State Bank of India, Western Kutchery Road Branch, Meerut and Vidit Aggarwal /deponent no.1 shall have no right over the proceeds transferred to account bearing No. 39800206888 maintained with State Bank of India, Western Kutchery Road Branch, Meerut. It has also been agreed that Vidit Aggarwal /deponent no.1 shall withdraw his name from the bank account aforesaid without claiming any right, interest or otherwise on the proceeds of the aforementioned bank account. Aakriti Gupta/deponent no.2 shall be entitled to withdraw the proceeds of the aforementioned account after the final judgment in petition u/s 13 B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act.

8. That the deponent no.1/Vidit Aggarwal has agreed to submit two demand drafts dated 14-08-2023, bearing 577844 and 577943 drawn on State Bank of India, Kutchery Meerut for amount of Rs. 30,00,000 and 20,00,000, respectively, in favor of deponent no.2/Smt. Aakriti Gupta. The deponent no.2/Smt. Aakriti Gupta shall be entitled to the aforementioned demand drafts on the date of filing of proposed petition u/s 13 B Hindu Marriage Act.

9. That Aakriti Gupta/deponent no.2 has agreed to receive this aforementioned amount (s) in full and final settlement for all of her claims towards Vidit Aggarwal and his family members. Aakriti Gupta /deponent no.2 undertakes that she shall not raise any further demand of money or rights in any manner from Vidit Aggarwal/deponent no.1 or his family members by claiming herself as his wife.

10. That a suit for dissolution of marriage under 13 (B) (1) shall be filed by the parties before the appropriate Court, as expeditiously as possible, after this compromise is taken on record by this Hon'ble Court and is accordingly verified.

11. That the deponents have agreed and given consent for not instituting any other proceedings against each either criminal or civil other or their family members before any competent court of law by representing the deponent no.1 himself husband or deponent no.2 herself as wife.?

11. Perusal of joint affidavit filed by the parties reveals that opposite party No. 2 will withdraw all the four cases as mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the joint affidavit. Likewise, father of the applicant No. 1 will withdraw Case No. 6349 of 2021 filed at his behest against opposite party No. 2. In paragraph No. 7, there is an averment qua withdrawal of amount from the bank in favour of opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, both the parties will file their divorce petitioner under Section 13 (B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the final alimony amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs shall be paid to opposite party No. 2 by the present applicant (husband).

12. As mentioned above, both the parties have personally appeared before this Court and have shown their agreement to decide the instant matter on the basis of compromise, which has been filed before this Court in the nature of joint affidavits. Both the parties have admitted the terms and contents of the joint affidavit and admitted their signatures made on the joint affidavit, as well.

13. In this view of the matter, there is no hurdle to decide all the four mattes as captioned above on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been filed before this Court in the nature of joint affidavit.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement between the parties, which is evident from the joint affidavit filed before this Court, instant applications may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in question challenged before this Court may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

15. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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;

(ii) 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.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant 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;

(iv) 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;

(v) 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;

(vi) In 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 approximately 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;

(vii) 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) 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;

(ix) 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

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."

16. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, aforementioned four applications are decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties which has been filed before this Court in the nature of joint affidavit.

17. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant applications are decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that both the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present cases against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

18. Having considered the compromise arrived at between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

19. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding, under challenge before this Court in the instant application, is hereby quashed.

20. It is made clear that in case any condition of the compromise is violated by the parties, the order of the date passed by this Court shall not be given effect to and the instant application shall be deemed to have revived on its original number and will be decided on its own merits after contest made by the parties.

20. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 29.8.2023

vinay