Allahabad High Court
Ramesh @ Ramesh Juyal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240637
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44683 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramesh @ Ramesh Juyal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Mishra,Vikrant Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
2.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record on Board.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 5873 of 2021 (State vs. Ramesh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court,-I, Ghaziabad.
4. Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Initially, present applicants have resorted to the remedy of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No.33416 of 2023 (Ramesh @ Ramesh Juyal & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & Another) assailing the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 159 of 2020 on the basis of compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2023 has finally disposed of the said Application No.33416 of 2023 with a direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise inked between the parties. It was left open to the present applicants to approach this Court again on the basis of verification of compromise. For ready reference, order dated 25.09.2023 passed by this Court in Application No.33416 of 2023 is quoted herein below :-
"Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 5873 of 2021 (State vs. Ramesh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court,-I, Ghaziabad, on the basis of compromise, pending before him.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, and the same has been filed before the lower court concerned.
Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application along with copy of compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 are directed to appear before the court below along with compromise and an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring their presence, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.
The court in that scenario will allow the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 25.09.2023, both the parties have appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-I, Ghaziabad has passed the compromise verification order dated 18.10.2023 with an observation that counsel for the parties have attested their signatures and photographs, thus, compromise has been verified in presence of the parties. Certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 18.10.2023 and certified copy of the compromise are collectively filed as Annexure-5 to the instant application. Certified copy of the statement of Minakshi (respondent no.2) and statement of Ramesh Juyal (applicant no.1) has collectively been filed as SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of the amicable settlement took place between the parties which has duly been verified by the court concerned, instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have judicially separated in pursuance of the decree passed in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Final alimony, as agreed upon between the parties, has been paid by the applicant no.1 (husband) to respondent no.2 (wife). Both the parties are living separately. They have burried the hatchet and now they have no grudges against each other. To quash the criminal proceedings, 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.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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 applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
10. Having considered the compromise verification order 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.
11. 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.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
VR
