Vipendra Bhargava v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29705 of 2022 Applicant :- Vipendra Bhargava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Alok Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the record on board.

¶2No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2.

¶3The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated

30.01.2022, cognizance order dated 03.06.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 11503 of 2022 (State Vs. Vipendra Bhargava) arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2021, under Sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi.

¶4Present matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the proceeding both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2023, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of compromise, which is quoted herein below :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 30.01.2022, cognizance order dated 03.06.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 11503 of 2022 (State Vs. Vipendra Bhargava), arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2021, under Sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. List after four months. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi has submitted his verification report dated 04.02.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 04.02.2023 and copy of the compromise dated 21.1.2023 supported by an affidavit. Perusal of compromise verification order dated 04.02.2023 reveals that compromise application has been filed supported by an affidavit along with I.D. proof of the parties. Both the parties were present before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Complainant has filed her personal affidavit with an averment that she has entered into the compromise on her own volition without any duress. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

¶7To quash the cognizance/summoning 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.

¶8In a 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶9Learned AGA has contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court concerned.

¶10Having considered the compromise application dated

21.01.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.02.2023 as well as compromise verification report dated 04.02.2023, 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.

¶11In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The charge sheet dated 30.01.2022, cognizance order dated 03.06.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 11503 of 2022 (State Vs. Vipendra Bhargava) arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2021, under Sections-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi is hereby quashed.

¶12Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Md Faisal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad