Allahabad High Court

Priyanka And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237301
 

 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11530 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Priyanka And 6 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anup Singh,Yogesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of impugned summoning order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No.876 of 2019 (Jitendra Kumar Raghav vs. Priyanka & Others) under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

3. Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2023, has directed the parties to get their compromise verified and the court concerned was directed as well to submit its verification report. For ready reference, order dated 27.09.2023, passed by this Court, is quoted herein below :-

"Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that he has filed short counter affidavit on 06.06.2023 in Registry, which is not available on record.

Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the case, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably.

As per understanding parties have already moved a divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindi Marriage Act, which is pending consideration. It is further submitted that the instant application may be decided on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has nodded the factum of compromise and urged that in the light of the settlement, opposite party no.2 is not interested to prosecute the instant matter against the present applicants.

In this conspectus as above, both the parties (applicants and opposite party no.2) are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 07.10.2023 and file their compromise application.

Learned trial court after receiving the compromise application shall verify the said compromise application in presence of both the parties and submit the verification report before this Court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties.

List this matter on 21.11.2023 along with verification report submitted by the court below, if any.

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by this Court, learned court concerned has verified the compromise and submitted verification report dated 11.11.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 10.10.2023 and compromise application supported by an affidavit. Perusal of compromise verification order reveals that both the parties have appeared and they have been identified by their respective counsel. They have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and burried the hatchet. 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

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 said compromise. 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. Having considered the compromise took place 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.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties and duly verified by the court concerned, 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 :- 14.12.2023