Shailendra Agnihotri And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 34592 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shailendra Agnihotri And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 11 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234488
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38613 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Shailendra Agnihotri And 3 Ors
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Katyayini
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Parvez Alam,Praveen Kumar Dubey,Raj Narayan
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Nishith Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Katyayini, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.02.2019 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 242 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0829 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Kannauj, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

3. It is submitted that instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of case both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2023, has referred the matter before the Mediation Centre to explore possibility of reconciliation between the parties. In pursuance of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and got the mediation process successful which is evident from the mediation report dated 01.11.2023 communicated to this Court by covering letter dated 02.11.2023. Perusal of settlement agreement dated 01.11.2023 reveals that both the parties have buried the hatched in terms of the compromise as averred in paragraph No.7 of the agreement settlement dated 01.11.2023.

4. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that now no dispute remains between the parties. Proceeding under Section 13B shall be decided subsequent to the decision of the instant matter and the final payment shall be made at the time of decision of the said case i.e. Case No.557 of 2023. He further submits that, in the eventuality of settlement agreement dated 01.11.2023 took place before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and they have no grudges against each other. They will be judicially separated in Case No.557 of 2023.

5. To quash the criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants 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.

6. In a 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."

7. Learned AGA has contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of settlement agreement took place between the parties dated 01.11.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the settlement agreement dated 01.11.2023. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. 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.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement dated 01.11.2023 both the parties arrived at compromise, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The charge sheet dated 16.02.2019 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 242 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0829 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Kannauj is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 11.12.2023

Md Faisal