Shubham And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25317 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180159
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13060 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shubham And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. None is present for opposite party No. 2.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 14.12.2022, charge sheet dated 16.1.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 27112 of 2022 (State Vs. Subham and others) arising out of the Case Crime No. 0177 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Meerut on the basis of compromise.

3. Having been aggrieved with the conduct of her in-laws, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an FIR levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. During pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise. At the request made on behalf of learned counsel for applicants, this Court, vide order dated 28.4.2023, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.01.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 14.12.2022 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 27112 of 2022 (State Vs. Subham and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0177 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and the dispute between the parties are matrimonial in nature. He further submits that on account of intervention of well-wishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. On the basis of said compromise, an affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 before the court below that she does not want to press the criminal proceedings initiated by her against the applicants. It is, thus, contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

Put up this case on 18.07.2023 as fresh before the appropriate Bench.

Learned counsel for the parties undertake that they shall make a fresh compromise application before the court below within a week from today for verification of the aforesaid compromise. They further undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 24.05.2023 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order within 24 hours.

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order along with a fresh compromise application before the court concerned within a week from today.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. It appears that due to some misunderstanding, this Court has passed subsequent order dated 25.7.2023 granting time to the parties to appear before the court below for verification of the compromise, however, in the meantime, the parties have already appeared before the trial court concerned and filed the compromise application dated 7.7.2023. In compliance of the earlier order dated 28.4.2023, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut has submitted its verification report dated 4.8.2023 along with a copy of the compromise and verification order dated 7.7.2023 which has been endorsed at the reverse side of the first page of the compromise. It has been observed in the compromise verification report that both the parties were present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. It has further been observed that the terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. They are living peacefully without any grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance 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.

6. 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."16

7. 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.

8. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 4.8.2023, compromise verification order dated 7.7.2023 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.

9. 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.

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

Order Date :- 19.9.2023

vinay