Rajnish And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27768 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195499
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19665 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rajnish And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. List revised. None is present for the opposite party no.2.

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

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of charge sheet dated 14.02.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning dated 18.09.2021 including entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1466 of 2021 (State vs. Rajnish & others), arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly on the basis of compromise.

4. The instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.463 of 2020 levelling allegation of cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. During pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Considering the matrimonial dispute, this Court, on the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants, has directed the parties to appear before the court below and file their compromise application which was directed to be verified by the trial court. For ready reference, the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This application has been moved with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.1466 of 2021 (State Vs. Rajnish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that in compliance of the order dated 06.08.2022 the amount deposited by the applicants for the mediation has not been utilized as the parties had already settled their disputes out of the Court and Mediation Center.

Call for a report from the office regarding return of the amount so deposited by the applicants.

In view of above, parties are directed and granted three weeks' time to appear and get the compromise deed, as stated by the counsel for the applicants, verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof as well as a copy of the verification order, on or before the next date of listing before this Court. The court concerned is also directed to transmit the same by the next date positively.

On these facts, the parties have arrived for some amicable settlement and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicant pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.

As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.

Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file a copy of this order before the court below within two weeks from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.

List on 31.03.2023 in the additional cause list."

5. It appears that the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by this Court was subsequently modified by order dated 16.03.2023.

6. Second supplementary affidavit dated 4/5.08.2023 has been filed on behalf of applicants annexing the certified copy of the compromise application dated 10.03.2023, certified copy of the statement of opposite party no.2, certified copy of the statement of applicant no.1 and certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 20.03.2023 as Annexure Nos.S.A.1, S.A.2 and S.A.3 respectively.

7. Perusal of the compromise application reveals that first informant and all the three applicants (accused) have affixed their photographs on the first page of compromise application . Opposite party no.2 (first informant) has appeared as CW-1 and Rajnish Kumar (husband) has appeared as CW-2, who have made their unequivocal statement before the Court to the effect that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they do not want to prosecute the instant criminal proceeding. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly has passed the compromise verification order dated 20.03.2023 with an observation that both the parties were personally present and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Contents of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. For ready reference verification order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the trial court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"???????20.03.2023

???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? Application U/S 482 No.19665 of 2022, ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ???????? 23.02.2023 ??? 16.03.2023 ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? 463/2020, ???? 498A,323,504,506 ?????? ???? ?????? ??? 3/4 ???? ???????? ??????? 1961, ???? ?????? ???, ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????, ???????? ???????, ???? ?????????, ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ????? ????? ????????,??????? ????? ????????, ???????? ????? ?????? ???, ?????? ????? ????????, ???? ????????,???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???? ????

?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????, ???????? ???????, ???? ?????????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??????, ???????? ?????? 4067/1985, ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????????? ????? ????? ????????, ??????? ????? ????????, ???????? ????? ?????? ???, ?????? ????? ????????, ???? ????????, ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ????, ???????? ?????? 4709/1994 ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???, ???????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????

???????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? 20.04.2023 ?? ??? ???

??? ????? ??????? ??????????

???? ?????? 03,?????"

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the amicable settlement took place between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and the 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. To quash the entire 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.

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. Having considered the compromise verification order dated 20.03.2023, compromise application 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.

12. 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.

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

14. Before parting, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have deposited the requisite amount for mediation process in pursuance of the order dated 06.08.2022, however, same could not be initiated, therefore, money deposited by the present applicants in pursuance of the order dated 06.08.2022 may be retimbursed.

15. As such, office is directed to examine the matter in the light of submissions as raised by learned counsel for the applicants and reimburse the requisite money as deposited by applicants in pursuance of the order dated 06.08.2022 in accordance with law, in case no medication process initiated.

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

Jitendra