Abhay Aggarwal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28932 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201104
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33999 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Abhay Aggarwal And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Smriti Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.11851 of 2022 (State vs. Abhay Aggarwal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0195 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 354C, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division/ F.T.C.-1), Ghaziabad on the basis of compromise.

3. The instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Having being aggrieved with the alleged behaviour of her in-laws, opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0195 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021, levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry and sexual harassment.

4. Present application has been filed on behalf of husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Before framing the charges both the parties have arrived at compromise and settle their dispute amicably. During pendency of case, being Case No.11851/2022, on the request made on behalf of both the parties, matter was referred to District Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ghaziabad. With the help of mediation process, mediation proceeding was successful and ultimately settlement took place between the parties on 25.07.2023. Copy of the agreement settlement dated 25.07.2023 took place between the parties has been filed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. After completion of mediation, both the parties have moved an appropriate misc. application before the trial court with the prayer to drop the criminal proceeding on the basis of the terms and conditions of the settlement, inasmuch as, opposite party no.2 is no more interested to prosecute the instant matter against the present applicants. Learned trial court, vide order dated 04.08.2023, has negated the prayer, inasmuch as, sections referred in the charge sheet are not compoundable.

5. Perusal of order sheet dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure No.1) reveals that, before framing of charges, both the parties have moved an application with the prayer to refer the matter before the mediation centre to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. Learned trial court, vide order dated 07.07.2023 has referred the matter before the medication centre fixing date as 25.07.2023 at about 11:00 a.m.

6. In pursuance of the order dated 07.07.2023, both the parties have appeared before the District Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ghaziabad to participate in mediation process. Ultimately, mediation process became successful between them and agreement settlement was inked between the parties on 27.05.2023, which has been filed as Annexure No.7 to the instant application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the light of the settlement agreement took place between the parties before the District Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ghaziabad dated 25.07.2023, 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.

8. 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."

9. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of settlement agreement dated 25.07.2023 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that settlement agreement dated 27.05.2023 took place between both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

11. Having considered the settlement agreement dated 25.07.2023 took place between the parties 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 settlement dated 25.07.2023 arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 17.10.2023

Jitendra