Allahabad High Court
Shyam Sundar Modanwal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7596 of 2023
Applicant :- Shyam Sundar Modanwal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicants is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the record.
The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceeding including order dated 31.7.2010 whereby charges were framed against the applicants in Criminal Case No.84 of 2010 (State vs. Shyam Sundar Modanwal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2009, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Chakia, District-Chandauli, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.
On the earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 01.03.2023 had directed the applicants to appear before the concerned court along with the compromise deed and get the compromise verified. In compliance of aforesaid order, the applicants have appeared before the court concerned for verification of compromise, whereby the court concerned after calling upon both the contesting parties have verified the compromise deed its covenants and its signatories by order dated 06.03.2023 in the presence of their respective counsels. Order of verification of compromise dated 6.3.2023 is annexed as Annexure-SA-1 along with the supplementary affidavit filed today.
From the compromise dated 6.3.2023 annexed along with supplementary affidavit, it is clear the husband and the wife, both have mutually decided to part with and severe their relationship, and therefore, the nuptial knot between them got dissolved. Rs.1,62,500/- as permanent alimony by way of Bank Draft No.155975 of Indian Bank Shakha, Maddhupur, Sonebhadra shall be agreed to be paid by applicant and certain articles of Sridhan has also been returned back to the opposite party no.2. In no uncertain terms it has been stated that the parties have no further claims or demands against each other. It has been specifically mentioned in the compromise/settlement that the opposite party no.2 is not inclined to prosecute the applicants any further and therefore she has no objection if the impugned proceeds of the present case is quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and they have settled down the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, under these changed circumstances, the entire proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise jotted down between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736
19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
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 "PARBATBHAI 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 difference, the Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that 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 order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 29.3.2023
M. Kumar
