Yogesh and 4 Ors v. State of U.P. and Anr

Court No. - 93 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29365 of 2018 Applicant :- Yogesh And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶1Heard Shri Shantanu Bharadwaj, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶2Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of State Case No.5054/9 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, and 342 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Meerut, which is pending before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing. A copy of written compromise was also filed before the Court below. On the basis of that compromise, it has been requested that the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶4The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that this matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Allahabad High Court by order dated 28.08.2018. In pursuance of this order both the parties appeared before the mediation centre and settlement was arrived at between them on 12.09.2019. Copy of settlement agreement has been annexed with the mediation report dated 12.09.2019. As per the settlement agreement dated 12.09.2019 both the parties have decided to live together as husband-wife and also decided to withdraw all criminal cases pending against each other. Copy of mediation settlement dated 12.09.2019 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 12.09.2019 between Sri Yogesh (Applicant No. 1-husband) and Smt. Madhuri ( SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT O.P. No. 2-wife). Whereas

¶1Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and Application U/S 482 29365 of 2018 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

¶2The matter was referred to mediation conciliation vide order dated 28.08.2018 passed by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3The parties agreed that Mr. V.K. Chandel and Mr. B.B. Singh Advocates, would act as their Conciliator/ Mediator, in Mediation Case No.1654/2019.

¶4Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation on 26.06.2019, 18.07.2019, 08.08.2019 and 12.09.2019 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences.

¶5That the marriage of Sri Yogesh (Applicant No. 1-husband) and Smt. Madhuri (O.P. No. 2-wife) was solemnized on 14.02.2013. Out of aforesaid wedlock the parties have one daughter namely Kavya. Due to strained relationships, both parties have been living seperately from 30.06.2017. Out of their wedlock they have a daughter namely Kavya aged about four and half years.

¶6The 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.

¶7In view of the Interim Settlement dated 08.08.2019, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: a) That Sri Yogesh (Applicant No. 1-husband) and Smt. Madhuri (O.P. No. 2-wife) have already entered into into an interim settlement on 08.08.2019 and decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife in perfect harmony together all previous dispute and differences. b) That after living together, the parties appeared before the Centre and stated to the mediators that they are satisfied with this reunion and further they want to continue it for the rest of their lives also. They further undertake to discharge all matrimonial obligations towards each other in respectful manner and undertake not to commit any kind of cruelty against each other in any manner whatsoever. c) That the parties undertakes to discharge all matrimonial obligations towards each other in respectful manner and undertake not to commit any kind of cruelty each other

in

any

manner

whatsoever. d) That the parties undertake that they shall not take any such action which may hurt either of the party mentally or physically and shall try to satisfy each other by their activities. e) That the husband undertakes to take care of his wife and son and provide all essential requirements and amenities to them in future. f) That it has been agreed between the parties that the all Criminal and Civil cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn/get quashed by them by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authorities concerned within one month of this Settlement Agreement. g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall comply with the terms and conditions of this settlement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.

¶5By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or against each other with respect to Application U/S 482 No. 29365 of 2018 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/ Mediation. Date:12.06.2019"

¶6Hon'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."

¶7Hon'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;"

¶8From 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.

¶9Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicants, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

¶10Considering 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 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 State Case No.5054/9 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, and 342 I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Meerut, which is pending before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut., is hereby quashed.

¶11With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 A Gautam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad