Allahabad High Court
Naveen Kumar Rastogi And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40854
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1394 of 2024
Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Rastogi And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwas Shukla,Devendra Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Rastogi
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for applicants, Shri Nitin Rastogi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I, for the State as well as perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.28/2021, Case Crime No.0012 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow and also to quash charge sheet as well as summoning order dated 11.01.2021.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.02.2024 has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State and Sri Nitin Rastogi, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and filed Vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.
2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the impugned Criminal Case No.28 of 2021 (State vs. Naveen Kumar Rastogi & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0012 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sahadatganj, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Room No.34, Lucknow and also quash the charge-sheet dated 19.10.2020 and the summoning order dated 11.01.2021, contained in Annexure Nos.1 & 2 respectively to this petition."
3. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the criminal case in question is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2, however, they have resolved their dispute amicably, as they have filed an application before the Family Court, Lucknow under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act wherein the next date has been fixed for 09.05.2024.
4. Learned counsels for the parties have called their clients i.e. petitioner No.1 (Sri Naveen Kumar Rastogi) and his wife Smt. Arti Soni @ Naina (opposite party No.2) and they are present before the court. Both the aforesaid parties have stated that they are trying their level best to settle their dispute amicably and on certain terms and conditions they have filed an application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court.
5. On being confronted from the parties as to whether they are willing to avail the mediation proceedings before this Court, they have stated that they would have no objection if the matter is referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court having expectation that the matter may be settled amicably. The parties have stated that they got married on 12.03.2019 but on trivial disputes they are living separately since November, 2019.
6. Since the next date before the Family Court has been fixed for 09.05.2024, therefore, without staying such proceedings the present issue is being referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable solution, if possible.
7. The parties shall remain present in the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court on 27.02.2024, as that date would be the first session of mediation. Thereafter, the mediation proceedings shall be conducted and concluded with expedition preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of its first session. Both the parties shall co-operate in the mediation proceedings properly and shall not take unnecessary adjournment. Thereafter, the Mediator(s) shall submit its report before this Court.
8. List this case on 29.05.2024 within top ten cases.
9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of Criminal Case No.28 of 2021; State vs. Naveen Kumar Rastogi & others (supra).
10. When the case is next listed, name of Sri Nitin Rastogi, Advocate be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite parties. "
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the applicants appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the learned Mediator vide its report dated 18.03.2024 had stated that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The report of the learned Mediator is available on record.
Learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have submitted that since the parties have entered into agreement, wherein a report has also been received from the learned Mediator, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.
Learned counsel for the parties have drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.
(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014
(6) SCC 466.
(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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."
The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly is private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and in view of the agreement made by the applicants as well as opposite party no.2 and the observation made above, the entire proceedings of Case No.28/2021, Case Crime No.0012 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow and also to the charge sheet as well as summoning order dated 11.01.2021 are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant applicants. The parties are bound to comply with the settlement agreement entered between them.
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
Saurabh
