Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 12 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235613
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47063 of 2019
Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh,Avinash Pandey,Mahendra Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devendra Kumar Shukla,Mohd. Jamshed Khan,Upendra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1628 of 2019 (State Vs. Pankaj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Gahmar, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.
3. In pursuance of the order date 19.12.2019 passed by this Court, parties were appeared before the Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of reconciliation. After due process of mediation, both the parties have inked settlement agreement dated 21.03.2021, which has been submitted by The Joint Registrar/In-charge AHCMCC.
4. For ready reference, final settlement agreement dated 21.03.2021 quoted hereinbelow:
" The SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 21.03.2021, between Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul (Applicant No.1- -husband) and Smt. Sangeeta Singh (O.P. No. 3-wife).
WHEREAS 1) Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/S 482 No. 47063 of 2019 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.
2) The matter was referred to mediation / conciliation vide order dated 19.12.2019 passed by bench of Hon'ble OM Prakash-VII, J.
3) The parties agreed that Mr. S.K. Mishra and Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 0191/2021.
4) Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation on 22-02-2021, 07-03-2021, 14-03-2021 and 21-03-2021 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences.
5) That the marriage of Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul (Applicant No.1-husband) and Smt. Sangeeta Singh (O.P. No. 3- wife) was solemnized on 04.12.2017. Out of their wedlock the parties have no issue. They started living separately since May, 2018.
6) The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.
7) In view of the Interim Settlement dated 14.03.2021, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a) That the parties have decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which is registered as Case No. 876 of 2021. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed to this settlement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul (Applicant No.1- husband) shall pay an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony and Stridhan of the wife.
c) That on 14.03.2021, the applicant-husband has produced a demand draft bearing no. 951571 dated 10.03.2021 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs. 05,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand only) issued in favour of Sangeeta Singh (O.P. No. 3-wife). The said demand draft was being kept in the file of the Mediation Centre and today i.e. 21.03.2021 the same demand draft handed over to the wife and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount ie. Rs. 05,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid by Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Rahul (Applicant No.1- husband) to Smt. Sangeeta Singh (O.P. No. 3-wife) at the time of final judgment in Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, by way of demand draft of a nationalized bank.
e) That both the parties have exchanged the items given as gift during the marriage ceremony and nothing more is claimed or demanded.
f) That both the parties have agreed that the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 12,800/- which was duly deducted every month from the husband's salary will not bepayable any more from 1" April, 2021. The department of India Air Force and 40 Wg AF (AOC) and 2401 Sqn AF (CO) where applicant-husbane is employed and he is requested to comply with the present agreement.
g) That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate step before the Court/authority concerned.
h) That it has also been agreed between the parties that they will not file any case/ complaint against eac other regarding the present matrimonial dispute in future also.
i) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of the settlement-agreement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.
By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/S 482 No. 47063 of 2019 and all disputes differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.
Date: 21.03.2021
SC"
5. It is submitted that in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 21.03.2021, entire money has been given to the opposite party No.2 (wife) and now nothing remains to be decided by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that, in the above eventuality of the settlement agreement dated 21.03.2023 took place between the parties, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into settlement agreement through process of mediation on their own volition and without any duress. 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.
6. 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."
7. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties before the Mediation Centre.
8. 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 application is decided finally on the basis of the settlement agreement. He also submits that both the parties 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. Having considered the settlement agreement dated 21.03.2023 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.
10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 12.12.2023
Mini
