Rajneesh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5285 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajneesh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 February, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24944
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36245 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rajneesh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Asha Parihar,Pratik Chandra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
 

1. Short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 filed today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

2. Heard Mrs. Asha Parihar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.3581 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajneesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station B.B. Nagar, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bulandshahar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a case for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 and the same has been decreed on 13.02.2024. As per settlements, the applicant no.1 was agreed to pay Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Only) as full and final settlement amount to opposite party no.2 towards all her claims. He further submits that as per terms of settlements, it is mutually agreed between the parties that all claims relating to matrimonial dispute, either civil or criminal are settled and the parties shall not make any future claims in any manner against each other and the parties shall make joint efforts to withdraw the pending cases filed against each other. He next submits that Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh) has already been paid by applicant no.1 to opposite party no.2 and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) is being paid by means of demand draft dated 30.12.2024 issued from State Bank of India, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad bearing no.815631 in favour of Preeti (opposite party no.2).

5. A short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been filed today in the Court wherein in para 6 it is stated that in compliance of the settlement dated 17.08.2023 applicant no.1 has paid Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh) on 03.10.2023, Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) on 24.01.2024 and Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) on 30.07.2024. In para 7 of the affidavit it is stated that in case remaining amout of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) is paid, the proceedings of the present case may be quashed by this Court.

6. The aforesaid demand draft dated 30.12.2024 issued from State Bank of India, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad bearing no.815631 in favour of Preeti (opposite party no.2) is handed over to learned counsel for opposite party no.2 today in the Court and he acknowledges the same, after retaining a photo copy of the same on record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of amicable settlement between the parties since demand draft of Rs.4,00,000/- out of remaining amount has been handed over to the counsel for opposite party no.2, all disputes between the parties have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

9. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

11. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

(i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

(ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

(iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

(iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

(v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

12. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

14. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.3581 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajneesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.45 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station B.B. Nagar, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bulandshahar, are hereby quashed.

15. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 20.2.2025

Abhishek Singh