Piyush Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2510 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 344 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Piyush Srivastava
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.

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

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 18.06.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal case no.39221 of 2016 arising out of case crime no.372 of 2015 under sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station-Kakadeo, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 16.02.2019.

On the earlier occasion, another application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.31342 of 2016 was filed on behalf of Piyush Srivastava(husband), Shail Srivastava (mother-in-law) and Brij Bihari Lal Srivastava(father-in-law) mentioning therein that all these applicants have jointly assailed the charge sheet dated 19.06.2016 in Criminal Case No.39221 of 2016 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order :-

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

This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.6.2016 in Criminal Case No.39221 of 2016 (State Vs. Piyush Srivastava and others) arising out of case crime No.372 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no.1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

So far as the husband-applicant no. 1, namely, Piyush Srivastava is concerned following orders is being passed:-

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.

So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following orders is being passed:-

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party nos.2 and 3 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case."

From the aforesaid, it is clear that except the husband, proceeding against father-in-law and mother-in-law was stayed by this Court and the husband was directed to surrender and get himself bailed out. Thereafter, it appears that better sense has prevailed between the parties and they have decided to settled down the dispute outside the Court and consequently, compromise was arrived at between them on 16.02.2019(annexure-4). This compromise was signed by all the stakeholders of the case and vide order dated 13.11.2019, bench of this Court has sent the matter for verification of the compromise before the court concerned. On 22.09.2021, the court concerned has verified the covenants, conditions and the signatures of the stakeholders and has submitted that there is compromise between the parties and opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the case any more.

Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that as per instructions received to him by his client, she has given clear instructions to him to withdraw the prosecution against the applicants. It has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

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."

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 charge sheet dated 18.06.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal case no.39221 of 2016 arising out of case crime no.372 of 2015 under sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station-Kakadeo, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 16.02.2019 is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 24.1.2023/Sumit S