Allahabad High Court
Ajay @ Ajay Kumar Omar @ Ajay Omar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208273
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25583 of 2022
Applicant :- Ajay @ Ajay Kumar Omar @ Ajay Omar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the record on board.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.
3. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 12567 of 2022 (State vs. Ajay Omar) arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Dehat and also to quash the cognizance order dated 31.10.2021 pursuant to charge sheet dated 31.10.2021 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2022, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Crime Against Women (CAW), Kanpur Dehat.
4. Owing to aggrieved with the behaviour of her husband, Smt. Kiran Omar has lodged an FIR levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. However, during pendency of proceeding both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 30.8.2022, has directed to court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties. For ready reference order dated 30.8.2022 is quoted herein below :-
"Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and settled their dispute amicably. They are residing together and no dispute remained between the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial court concerned and file compromise deed. In the event of filing compromise deed between the parties, the trial court shall get it verify and send verification report within four weeks.
List after four weeks in the additional cause list along with verification report.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive proceeding shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 12567 of 2022 (State vs. Ajay Omar), arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Dehat."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by this Court, learned Incharge Officer Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Dehat has submitted his verification report dated 13.10.2022 along with copy of compromise application supported by affidavit. Perusal of compromise verification report dated 13.10.2022 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the court on 12.9.2022 and put their signatures on the compromise. They have been identified by their respective counsels. Statements of the parties were recorded by the court below as well and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified. It is further observed that previously verification report has already been sent on 19.9.2022. Copy of the previous report dated 19.9.2022 is also appended with the report dated 13.10.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Incharge Officer Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Dehat verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other.
7. To quash the cognizance/summoning order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court concerned.
10. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 13.10.2022, compromise verification order dated 12.09.2022 and with 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.
11. 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 Case No. 12567 of 2022 (State vs. Ajay Omar) arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Dehat and the cognizance order dated 31.10.2021 pursuant to charge sheet dated 31.10.2021 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2022, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Crime Against Women (CAW), Kanpur Dehat are hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 31.10.2023
Md Faisal
