Uttam Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 634 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Uttam Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74918
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9989 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Uttam Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Dixit,Krishna Mohan Singh,Mohd Faiz
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Abhyuday Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Krishna Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of the case no. 4191 of 2010 arising out of case crime no.2991 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S.Izzatnagar,District Bareilly pending in the court of CJM, Bareilly.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including the order dated 01.10.2018, of Case No. 6840 of 2018 (State Vs. Ejaz & Others), under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in terms of the compromise dated arrived at between the parties.

4. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that opposite party no. 2 has lodged an FIR against the applicant on 27.11.2009 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 DP Act,in Case Crime No. 2991 of 2009. After investigation police submitted chargesheet on 25.02.2010 whereupon cognizance was also taken by the court below which was registered as Case No. 4191 of 2010 and the proceedings of the same has been under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant as well as opposite party no.2 has jointly submitted that this Court referred this matter to the mediation centre by order dated 03.04.2023.

6. In pursuance of the order of this Court both the parties have appeared before the mediation centre, of this Court which resulted in the successful mediation and a settlement agreement has also been entered into between the parties.

7. From perusal of the report of the mediation centre dated 17.10.2023 it is evident that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a settlement agreement dated 17.10.2023 has also been entered into between them.

8. Para no. 7 of the Settlement Agreement dated 26.09.2023 is reproduced hereinafter:-

"7. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 26.09.2023, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-

a) That the parties 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 Principal Judge Family Court, Bareilly on 05.10.2023, which is registered as Marriage Petition No. 1521 of 2023. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay one time settlement amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) which includes permanent alimony and Stridhan of the wife by way of Demand Draft.

c) That on 26.09.2023, the husband has produced a demand draft bearing No. 938910 dated 25.09.2023 for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of Reeta Devi (wife) which was kept in the concerned file and the same has been handed over today i.e. 17.10.2023 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

d) That today i.e. 17.10.2023, the husband has handed over another demand draft bearing No. 197963 dated 07.10.2023 for Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of Reeta Devi, to the O.P. No.2-wife and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.

e) That it has also been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be paid by Uttam Kumar (Applicant-Husband) to Rita Devi (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in aforesaid Marriage Petition No. 1521 of 2023 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly by way of demand draft.

f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that in view of the above, 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 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."

9. As the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise has also been entered into between them and the parties have decided to withdraw the cases filed against each other. In such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-

"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 the 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 the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-

"15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

12. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

13. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicant, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

14. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

15. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 7.5.2025

Saurabh