Nitin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4144 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2377 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Nitin And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjit Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, Advocate has filed vakalatanama today in the Court, on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri Anjit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

By means of the instant application, the applicant is invoking the plenary power of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 571 of 2010 arising out of case crime no. 2 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD), FTC-2, Gautam Budh Nagar on the basis of compromise between the parties.

On the earlier occasion, in 482 application no. 23511 of 2022 which was disposed of by order dated 05.08.2022 by the coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the parties to appear before this court concerned and got the compromise deed verified.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the said compromise deed dated 12.10.2022 which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, which was produced before the concerned Magistrate for its verification and parties have approached the concerned court. The court concerned after holding indepth probe in the matter and getting himself satisfied passed an order dated 12.10.2022 verifying the covenants of the compromise.

Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 inform the Court that as per the instruction from his client that they have put a seal of approval on the covenants of the compromise and submits that it has been instructed by this client that he should not going to oppose the present 482 Cr.P.C. application and confirm the covenants of the compromise.

Taking into account the gravity of offence, which is much more marital discord between the husband and wife and the parties have reunited and leading peaceful life.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows: -

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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."

Taking the help of these guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

The present 482 application stands allowed.

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application after explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

Let copy of this order may be transmitted to the concerned court within twenty days.

Order Date :- 9.2.2023/Abhishek Sri.