Gourav Chaturvedi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5511 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2175 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Gourav Chaturvedi And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshay Raj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Ruchita Singh, holding brief of Sri Akshay Raj Singh counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State perused the papers on record.

By means of the present 482 application the applicants are invoking extraordinary power of this court for quashing the criminal case no. 0003 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Gaurav Chaturvedi And Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 3603 of 2014, under Sections 328, 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai.

The contention raised by counsel is that an F.I.R. was got registered on 29.09.2014 by Raju son of Ram Prakash against Gaurav son of Jai Hind, Jai Hind son of unknown, Raja and Atul Gupta under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC with allegation that on 29.08.2014 informant's daughter Ms. Nitu Shukla aged about 16 years was enticed away by Gaurav and Raja. After the recovery of the girl she has given a statement in the court twice in which she has pointedly the accused Gaurav for kidnapping her and committed rape with her. All the family members are horrified. The charge-sheet has submitted under Sections 328, 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012, against Gaurav Chaturvedi and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 2.01.2015 and on 06.01.2023 parties have executed a compromise deed. Both the parties have entered into upon marriage and by this wedlock the girl has given a birth to baby both are living happily as husband and wife. On the earlier occasion 482 application no. 40508 of 2020 was filed and whereby on 19.12.2022 the court has directed to appear and get the verification done. The said compromise deed dated 06.01.2023 was duly verified on 07.01.2023 by the Special Judge POCSO Act Orai.

Learned counsel for the applicant has cited two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 362 in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2022 decided on 28.03.2022 as well as Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another decided on 10.08.2022. To buttress his contention in case of Mafat Lal (Supra) in paragraph nos. 6 and 7:-

"6. The High Court although records all such facts, appears to have been swayed with the fact that the abductee was a minor at the time when she left her home and that the appellant had evaded the investigation and had been successful in keeping away from the process of law for several years. The High Court further proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had actually kidnapped/abducted the minor daughter of the complainant.

7. Before this Court, also the abductee has joined the accused as appellant No.2. Once again similar stand has been taken as was taken before the High Court. Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant No.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no. 2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1."

Taking into account the aforesaid submission the opposite party no. 3 Smt. Vaishali has given a birth to a baby and both are living happily as husband and wife.

Under circumstances, in the light of compromise and the nature of severity of the offence, let the matter may be consigned to record, proceeding of Criminal Case Number No. 0003 of 2015 is hereby quashed in the light of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicants 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."

With the assistance of the aforesaid 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 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned proceeding of the present case against the applicants, is hereby quashed.

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

Order Date :- 20.2.2023

Vikram