Ankur Gupta And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25725 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183951
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41662 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ankur Gupta And 6 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- P.H. Vashishtha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raunak Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

2. 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.

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings passed in Case No.35 of 2021 (State Vs. Ankur Gupta and others) , arising out of Case Crime No.0023 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate court Fareedpur, District 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.0023 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. On the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2023, has permitted the parties to file compromise application before the court below and after getting it verified certified copy of the said verification order was ordered to be obtained and file before this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 17.03.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raunak Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 35 of 2021 (State Vs. Ankur Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0023 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354-B of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court Fareedpur, Bareilly on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1 to 7 are the brother-in-laws, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-laws 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 applicant. 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.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

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 06.04.2023 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 28.03.2023 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."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by this Court, both the parties have filed the compromise application supported by an affidavit. Learned trial court has verified the aforesaid compromise by compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023. The certified copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order are collectively filed as Annexure-S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit.

6. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023 reveals that both the parties (first informant and all the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsels. It has been observed that the compromise has been inked between the parties and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

7. Perusal of the compromise application reveals that it bears the signature of all the parties and the photographs of all the signatories are affixed on the margin of first and second page of the compromise.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023 filed along with the supplementary affidavit 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 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. 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 compromise was verified in presence of 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.

12. Having considered the compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023, 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.

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 :- 21.9.2023

Jitendra