Priya Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25738 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183671
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15939 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Priya Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dr. Akhilesh Kumar,Suchita Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

In Re: Criminal Misc. Impleadment Application No. 3 of 2021

1. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has payed to dismiss the intervention/impleadment application filed on behalf of Manuj Sharma as not pressed.

2. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer as made by the learned counsel for the present applicant. As such, the instant impleadment application is dismissed as not pressed.

Order on Application

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

4. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of supplementary charge sheet No.A-135 dated 07.10.2019 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.3.2020 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 454 of 2019 (State of UP Vs. Sachit Kumar) arising out of the Case Crime No. 14 of 2019, under Section 494 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, Rakabganj, District Agra pending in the Court of Fast Track Court Ist, A.C.J. (J.D.), Agra, District Agra on the basis of compromise.

5. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an FIR, being Case Crime No. 14 of 2019 dated 3.2.2019, making allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. Instant application moved on behalf of Smt. Priay Sharma has been indicted under Section 494 I.P.C. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, 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 both the parties, this Court, vide order dated 03.9.2021, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Ms. Suchita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

Ms. Suchita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has made a statement at the bar that affidavit has been filed in the Registry on 02.09.2021, however, the same has not yet been uploaded.

She has further stated that parties have entered into a compromise and has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet No.A-135 of 2019 dated 07.10.2019 and summoning order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No.5, District-Agra in Criminal Case No.454 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.14 of 2019, under Section 494 IPC, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Rakabganj, District-Agra.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, parties are directed to appear before the court of Fast Track Court-1st, learned A.C.J. (Jr.Div.), Agra for verification of compromise on 10th September, 2021.

Let verification report be submitted by the concerned court to the Registry of this Court on or before 18th September, 2021.

List on 22nd September, 2021 as fresh.

Till then, no coercive action be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

6. In pursuance of the order dated 03.9.2021 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra has submitted its verification report dated 16.9.2021 along with copy of the compromise and verification order dated 10.9.2021 endorsed at the reverse side of the last page of the compromise. A perusal of the compromise verification order dated 10.9.2021 reveals that both the parties were present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel, accordingly, the compromise has been verified.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 10.9.2021 and the verification report dated 16.9.2021, 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.

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 compromise 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 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 16.9.2021, compromise verification order dated 10.9.2021 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 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.

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

Order Date :- 21.9.2023

Md Faisal