Vikrant Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3095 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vikrant Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4198
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27247 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Vikrant Pandey And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rishu Srivastav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants, today in Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record on board.

3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2340 of 2019 (State Vs. Vikrant Pandey and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2019, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Madhuban, District- Mau as well as summoning order dated 02.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

4. It is submitted that instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. In order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2023, has referred the matter before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. In pursuance thereof, both the parties were appeared and have inked the settlement agreement dated 01.12.2023, which is available on record. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for the applicant has urged to decide the instant application. The settlement agreement dated 01.12.2023 is quoted herein below :-

"ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 01.12.2023, between Vikrant Pandey (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Kirti Pandey (O.P. No. 2-Wife).

WHEREAS

1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application U/S 482 No. 27247 of 2023 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

2. The matter was referred to mediation / conciliation vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed by bench of Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

3. The parties agreed that Ms. Neeta Suhkla and Mr. R.C. Upadhyay, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 3861/2023.

4. Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/ Mediation on 22-09-2023, 06-10-2023, 27-10-2023, 17-11-2023, 24-11-2023 and 01- 12-2023 the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences.

5. The marriage of Vikrant Pandey (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Kirti Pandey (O.P. No. 2-Wife) was solemnized 04.03.2017. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties have been living separately after twenty two days of their marriage.

6. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.

7. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 24.11.2023, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

a) That the parties have have settled their dispute and decided to live separately and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau and the same is registered as Case No. 741 of 2023. The certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the applicant no. 1-husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh only) to the wife which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance by way of demand draft.

c) That on 24.11.2023, the applicant no. 1-husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 135506 dated 21.11.2023 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of Kirti Pandey (wife), which was kept in the file concerned with the consent of the parties and today i.e. 01.12.2023 the same has been handed over to the Kirti Pandey (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

d) That today i.e. 01.12.2023 the applicant no. 1-husband has handed over another demand draft bearing no. 343374 dated 28.11.2023 for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) drawn on Indian Bank in favour of Kirti Pandey (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by Vikrant Pandey (Applicant No. 1-Husband) to Kirti Pandey (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in Case No. 741 of 2023 pending in Family Court, Mau by way of demand draft.

f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.

g) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also.

h) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.

8.-By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/S 482 No. 27247 of 2023 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.

DATE: 01.12.2023"

5. It is further submitted that both the parties have voluntarily entered into settlement agreement without any duress and coercion. As per settlement agreement, both the parties have agreed to settle their dispute on the final alimony amounting Rs. 9,00,000/-. In pursuance of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this this Court, learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit with an averment that remaining amount Rs. 6,50,000/- of total Rs. 9,00,000/- has been paid to the wife, and, accordingly, divorce proceeding under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act has been decided finally vide order dated 19.03.2024. Besides that proceeding under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. has also been decided vide order dated 19.03.2024. Certified copy of the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in proceeding under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and proceeding under Section 128 Cr.P.C. are filed collectively as Annexure no. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant nos.2 & 3 are parents-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad in order to explore the possibility of settling the dispute through mediation vide order dated 28.07.2023.

3. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.07.2023, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, a settlement agreement dated 01.12.2023 has been arrived at, a copy of which has been annexed with this application and shall form part of it.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that as per the said settlement agreement dated 01.12.2023, the applicant no.1 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 in lieu of all her claims and dues. Out of which, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already paid to the opposite party no.2 and balance amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- shall be paid to her, which applicant no.1 undertakes to pay.

5. In view of the above, list this case on 29.02.2024.

6. Till then, interim order dated 28.07.2023, as extended from time to time, stands extended."

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into settlement out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no 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.

7. 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

8. Learned A.G.A. 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.

9. Having considered the settlement agreement dated 01.12.2023 took place between the parties 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.

10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

Sumit K.