Rahul And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 35058 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rahul And 2 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:237354
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22701 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rahul And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuvir Sharan Singh
 

 
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 entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 5297 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 354, 323 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 28.9.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Ghaziabad in the light of compromise dated 20.5.2023.

4. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties and the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 15.9.2023, has issued a direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise. For ready reference, the order dated 15.9.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. Heard leaned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.5297 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0039 of 2021, under Sections 498A,354, 323 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 28.09.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Ghaziabad in the light of compromise dated 20.05.2023.

3. The instant application is arising out of matrimonial discord.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court vide compromise dated 20.05.2023, photostat copy of the compromise dated 20.05.2023 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application.

5. It is urged that the instant application may be allowed and criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants may be quashed on the basis of said compromise.

6. In this conspectus, as above, applicants are hereby directed to file original copy of the compromise dated 20.05.2023 (Annexure-5) before trial court. After receiving the said compromise, trial court shall verify the compromise in presence of both the parties after taking their statements and submit verification report within a period of one month from the date of first appearance of the parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 04.10.2023.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants assured that he will give notice in writing to the opposite party No.2 apprising the order of date so that she also present on the date fixed by this Court.

8. List this matter on 04.11.2023 along with the verification report submitted by trial court concerned.

9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 15.9.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has submitted a verification report dated 4.10.2023 along with copy of the compromise verification order dated 4.10.2023 and other relevant documents. A perusal of the verification report dated 4.10.2023 and the compromise verification order dated 4.10.2023 reveal that both the parties (first informant and all the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel. Parties have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned in the presence of the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 4.10.2023 and compromise verification order 4.10.2023, 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 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.

29(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.

8. 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 c24omplaint 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."

9. 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, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

10. 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.

11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 4.10.2023, compromise verification order dated 4.10.2023 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.

12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 14.12.2023

vinay