Prem Chand Upadhyay @ Bulbul And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27767 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195373
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8684 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Prem Chand Upadhyay @ Bulbul And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Roopesh Kumar Nigam,Udantika
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. List revised. None is present on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of Bailable Warrant dated 04.03.2022 as well as impugned charge sheet dated 02.07.2019 as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2019 in Case No.1067 of 20019 (State Vs. Prem Chand Upadhyay @ Bulbul and others), arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354-Kha I.P.C., Police Station Baburi, District Chandauli, pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division/ F.T.C.-I), Chandauli.

4. Arising out of family discord, an F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite Party No. 2 against her relatives (present applicants). On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2022, has referred the matter before the Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of conciliation between the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 11.08.2022 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Charge Sheet Dated 2.7.2019, submitted in Case Crime No. 56 of 2019, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 354Ka IPC, Police Station- Baburi, District Chandauli, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 23.7.2019, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division/F.T.C.-I) in Case No. 1067 of 2019 (State Vs. Prem Chand Upadhyay @ Bulbul and Others), as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division/F.T.C.) Chandauli.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute, which has been dragged into criminal litigation. In case an opportunity is granted to the parties by referring them to mediation, they may get an opportunity to amicably settle their dispute.

Considering the nature of litigation as well as the relationship between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity be provided to the parties for mediation to enable them to amicably settle their dispute. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad.

The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of demand draft / pay order in the name of Registrar General A/c, Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre within a period of ten days from today. After deposit of the aforesaid money, office shall send a notice to the opposite party no.2 to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on the date fixed in the notice. Out of aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be payable to the opposite party no.2 on her appearance before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The balance amount shall be retained by Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit its report in the matter within three months.

Opposite party-2 may file his counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Put up this matter on 14.11.2022 as fresh alongwith the report of Mediation Centre.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of above mentioned case, shall remain stayed.

If the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the applicants within the aforesaid period, the protection granted to the applicants shall automatically come to an end and the office shall immediately list this case as fresh for further orders before the Court."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 11.08.2022, both the parties have appeared before the Mediation Centre and, ultimately, after the mediation process being taken, both the parties have arrived at compromise. Accordingly, settlement agreement dated 22.02.2023 taken place between them. For ready reference, report of Mediation Centre dated 22.02.2023, acknowledging the settlement agreement between the parties is quoted hereinbelow:-

"ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 22.02.2023, between Shri Prem Chand Upadhyay Bulbul (Applicant No. 1) and Smt. Renu Devi (O.P. No. 2).

WHEREAS

1) Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto APPLICATION U/s 482 No. of 2022 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

2) The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated 11.08.2022 passed by bench of Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.

3) The parties agreed that Ms. Ainakshi Sharma and Ms. Seema Pandey, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators, in the Mediation Case No. 3698/2022.

4) Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation on 26- 11-2022, 21-12-2022, 11-01-2023, 08-02-2023 and 22-02-2023 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences.

5) The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.

6) In view of the interim Settlement dated 08.02.2023, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

(a) That interim settlement dated 08.02.2023 shall form a part of this settlement and both the settlements shall be read together to bring out a logical conclusion.

(b) That in pursuance of paragraph 6 (d) of the interim settlement dated 08.02.2023, the applicant no. 1 has produced a demand draft bearing no. 210585 dated 07.02.2023 drawn on Punjab National Bank for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) issued in the name of Rinu (O. P. No. 2), which was kept in file concerned with the consent of the parties and the same has been handed over to Smt. Renu Devi (O.P. No. 2) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

(c) That in pursuance of para 6 (f) of the interim settlement dated 08.02.2023, today the applicant no. I has produced a demand draft of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) and the aforesaid demand draft has been handed over to Smt. Renu Devi (O.P. No. 2) today i.e. 22.02.2023 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. The demand draft bearing no. 210591 dated 20.02.2023 drawn on Punjab National Bank issued in the name of Rinu. After the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Only), nothing remains due between the parties.

(d) That it has also been agreed between the parties that apart from the cases mentioned above, if any civil or criminal case is pending between the parties against each other regarding present dispute shall also be withdrawn by the parties concerned as soon as possible in view of this settlement-agreement.

(e) That the parties further agreed that they shall not file any fresh case/ complaint against each other regarding present dispute in any manner whatsoever.

(f) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement-agreement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.

7) By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8684 of 2022 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the light of the settlement dated 22.02.2023, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, who are living peacefully. It is further submitted that to observe the peace and tranquility in the life of both the parties, instant matter is required to be decided finally in the light of the settlement. 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 AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

9. Having considered the agreement settlement dated 22.02.2023 and 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 criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

Jitendra