Arvind Kumar Bansal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 29904 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207260
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8379 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Bansal And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Shanker Mishra,Neetu Singh,Nishant Kumar,Prashant Kumar Bhardwaj,Satyendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA. None is present on behalf private respondent no. 2.

3. Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 27.04.2022 and cognizance order dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Case No. 3283 of 2022 (State vs. Arvind Kumar Bansal & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1361 of 2021 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad.

4. Respondent no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. against her husband and his family members levelling allegations of harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. During pendency of the proceeding parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. On the previous date i.e. 14.09.2023, respondent no. 2 and her husband (applicant No. 1) were personally present before this Court and they have admitted the factum of compromise.

5. On their joint request, having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court passed an order dated 14.09.2023 issuing direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise in presence of both the parties. For ready reference order dated 14.09.2023 is quoted herein below :-

"1. Applicant No. 1 (husband) and opposite party no. 2 (wife) are present in person.

2.. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 27.04.2022 and cognizance order dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Case No.3283 of 2022 (State Vs. Arvind Kumar Bansal & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1361 of 2021, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by applicant no. 1 that previously a compromise application has been filed before this Court on 04.07.2023, being Misc. Compromise Application No. 4 of 2023. However, at subsequent stage both the parties have filed a compromise application dated 29.08.2023 before the courts below. Certified copy of the compromise dated 29.08.2023 has been shown to this Court. Both the parties have prayed to decide the instant application on the basis of the compromise.

4. In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court concerned, before whom compromise application has been filed, shall verify the said compromise in the presence of both the parties, after recording their statement, and submit a verification report within one month from the date of appearance of the parties, who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 25.09.2023.

5. List this matter on 30.10.2023 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants in Criminal Case No.3283 of 2022 (State Vs. Arvind Kumar Bansal & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1361 of 2021, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District- Ghaziabad."

6. In pursuance of the order dated 14.09.2023 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad has submitted compromise verification report dated 03.10.2023 along with copy of compromise application, statement of respondent no.2, statement of applicant no. 1 and compromise verification dated 03.10.2023. Perusal of statement of respondent no. 2 shows that owing to intervention by some elder members of the family, she entered into compromise and do not want to press the criminal proceeding. As per her statement they will be judicially separated on the final alimony of Rs.2,10,000/-. As per statement of applicant no. 1 (Arvind Kumar Bansal) he will deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court through demand draft. Learned court concerned has observed in its compromise verification order dated 03.10.2023 that both the parties have personally appeared before the court concerned and their statement were recorded. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. The parties have voluntarily entered into compromise. Certified copy of the compromise application, certified copy of statement respondent no. 2 and statement of applicant no. 1 and certified copy of compromise verification order dated 03.10.2023 have collectively been filed as S/A-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the amicable settlement took place between the parties and compromise verification order 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 entered into compromise out of their own violation without any duress and burried the hatched. It is further submitted that in terms of compromise both the parties will be judicially separated in the divorce proceeding going on in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, District Ghaziabad.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and burried the hatchet. It is further submitted that in terms of compromise both the parties will be judicially separated in the divorce proceeding going on in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, District Ghaziabad.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 26.06.2023, the 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 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.

10. 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

11. Learned A.G.A. 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.

12. Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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. 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.

13. 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.

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

Order Date :- 30.10.2023

VR