Allahabad High Court
Vikas And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75200
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36680 of 2024
Applicant :- Vikas And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Shiv Murti Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ram Pyare, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 today in the Court, is taken on record.
1A. Heard Shri Shiv Murti Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Ram Pyare, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms.Harshita Rani, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. IX/2024, Case Crime No. 332/2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Nauhjheel, District- Mathura as well as charge sheet dated 29.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 23.04.2024.
3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy is that matrimonial discord, between the parties, has culminated into the impugned proceedings. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature and now they have settled their dispute amicably and written compromise has also been entered between them.
4. This Court vide order dated 11.11.2024, referred this matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. In pursuance of this order, both the parties have participated in the mediation which was resulted successfully agreement dated 25.03.2025. From the perusal of report of mediation centre dated 25.03.2025, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably. Paragraph No. 7 of the agreement dated 25.03.2025 is being quoted here-in-under:-
"7. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 21.01.2025, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That Vikas (Applicant No. - Husband) and Smt. Vandana Singh (O.P. No. 2- Wife) have mutually decided to live separaely and dissolve their marriage and pursuant to the same they have filed a joint petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura which is registered as Matrimonial Case No. 169/2025. The parties undertake that they shall produce the certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition before the Hon'ble High Court at the time of hearing.
b) That on 21.01.2025, it had been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the O.P. No. 2-Wife towards permanent alimony including Stridhan and all her other financial claims. The aforesaid amont shall be paid by way o demand drafts in favour of O.P. No. 2-wife.
c) That on 21.01.2025, the husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 522029 dated 14.01.2025 for Rs. 1,87,500/- (Rs. One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Vandana (wife) which was kept on record and the same has been handed over to the wife today i.e. 25.03.2025 and the OP No. 2-wife has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d) That today i.e. 25.03.2025, the husband has produced another demand draft bearing no. 522039 dated 17.02.2025 for Rs. 1,87,500/- (Rs. One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) drawn on Canara Bank which is issued in the name of Vandana (wife) and the same has been handed over to the wife today i.e. 25.03.2025 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. 3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) shall be paid by the husband to the wife at the time of second motion/final judgment in Matrimonial Case No. 169/2025 pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, by way of demand draft.
f) That the parties undertake that they shall produce the certified copies of the withdrawal applications in the cases (criminal or civil) filed by them against each other or their family members regarding present matrimonial dispute before the Hon'ble High Court at the time of final hearing.
g) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute.
5. Considering the fact that the dispute in question is matrimonial in nature, the parties have settled their dispute and the compromise between them has been verified by the court below, therefore, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
6. 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."
7. 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;"
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Considering the above facts as well as law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding ofCase No. IX/2024, Case Crime No. 332/2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Nauhjheel, District- Mathura as well as charge sheet dated 29.10.2023 and cognizance order dated 23.04.2024, is hereby quashed.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2025
Sharad/-
