Allahabad High Court
Vikas Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193142
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10723 of 2023
Applicant :- Vikas Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. List revised. None is present for opposite party no. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record on board.
3. The Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2019 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura pending in the Court of learned Court of Crime Against Woman, Mathura.
4. Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Being dissatisfied with the behaviour of her in-laws, opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R.leveling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. During pendency of the proceeding both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and arrived at a compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court has issued a direction to the court below for verification of the compromise. For ready reference, order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
"List revised.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.
The present application has been filed by the applicants- Vikas Kumar, Shyam Kumar Singh and Smt. Chandra Kanta with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the court of Crime Against Women, Mathura as the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and nothing remains in between the parties and no purpose would be served to keep pending the present case with further prayer that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 12.09.2022, copy of the said compromise is annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.
Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.
List on 02nd May, 2023.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 31.03.2023, learned Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (Crime Against Women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura has submitted its verification report 11.04.2023 along with the verification order dated 11.04.2023 and copy of the compromise dated 11.04.2023 supported by an affidavit of opposite party no. 2. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 11.04.2023 reveals that all accused (present applicants) and the first informant have appeared before the court and filed their personal affidavit along with identity proof. The parties were identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to both the parties, who have accepted factum of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified in presence of the parties. In the verification report dated 11.04.2023 learned Magistrate has reiterated the observation as made in the compromise verification order dated 11.04.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants, in the eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties and the verification of the compromise by the court competent, has submitted that the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both parties have arrived at compromise on their own volition without any durace and coercion. They have buried the hatchet and have no grudges between them against each other, therefore, criminal case initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged on behalf of opposite party no. 2 may be quashed. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-
(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.
(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-
"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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 recognises 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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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."
8. Learned A.G.A. states that he has no objection in case the matter is decided on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
9. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between both the parties and compromise verification order dated 11.04.2023, with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 329 of 2019 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Crime Against Woman, Mathura, on the basis of compromise dated 11.04.2023, are hereby quashed.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
Pkb/
