Ram Babu @ Babu Ram And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 14556 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100380
 
Court No. - 68
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18827 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Babu @ Babu Ram And 6 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Ashutosh Mani Tripathi,Daya Shanker Mani Tripahti,Rajeev Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

On 16.06.2017, the following order was passed:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record.

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the court below i.e. the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi and further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 129 of 2016, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Aurai, District- Bhadohi, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 respectively, applicant nos. 3 to 6 are brothers-in-law and applicant no. 7 is sister-in-law of opposite party no. 2, against whom general allegations have been levelled by opposite party no. 2. It is thus, argued that criminal prosecution of the applicants is in clear contravention of the settled principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh.

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 No. 2 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 on 17.08.2017 before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the matter has been settled between husband and wife and husband Suraj Kumar had filed an application u/s 482 No.21801 of 2017, in which, on 16.02.2023, the following order has been passed:-

"The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 129 of 2016, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Aurai, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, as well as the summoning order dated 14.10.2016.

The court having regard to the nature of dispute and the possibility of an amicable settlement, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where the parties have arrived at a written settlement dated 29.3.2018 in terms whereof, all their subsisting disputes stood settled. The parties have specifically agreed that all their criminal matters shall also stand terminated, including the one in hand.

A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has laid down the principles governing the exercise of power by High Court under Section 482 CrPC in cases where the parties have arrived at amicable settlement as follows: -

"61. ?the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. :

(i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

Much before the said judgment, in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court had categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences.

In a recent judgment in Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012), decided on 29.9.2021, reported in (2022) 118 ACC 318, the Supreme Court once again reiterated that even if the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court can quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceeding. While so holding, it has been pointed out that the High Court can indisputably evaluate the consequential effects of the offences beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. In para 14 of the said judgment, the principles have been summarized as follows: -

"14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided."

I have gone through the allegations/charges against the accused/s and I am of the opinion that these are not of such nature as would fall within the excepted class of cases where quashing the proceeding and permitting the accused to go unpunished, would have any detrimental effect on the society at large. The dispute between the parties was predominantly of a private nature, which has been settled amicably. I am of the opinion that in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 129 of 2016, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Aurai, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, as well as the summoning order dated 14.10.2016, are hereby quashed."

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the matter has been settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise, wastage of time of the Court and an abuse of process of law, hence, the same may be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

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. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the matter between husband and wife has been settled, therefore, nothing remains in this petition.

Accordingly, the proceedings of impugned order dated 14.10.2016 passed by A.C.J.M., Bhadohi, and Complaint Case No.129 of 2016 (Sandhya Devi Vs. Suraj Kumar & Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Aurai, District-Bhadohi, are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 9.5.2023

Rahul.