Saurabh Raj Vashishtha and 4 Others v. State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6593 of 2022 Applicant :- Saurabh Raj Vashishtha And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tripathi,Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivesh Mishra Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 921 of 2018 (State of UP Vs. Prem Dutt Sharma and others) arising out of the Case Crime No. 445 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 307, 511, 494, 120-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Court, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr on the basis of compromise.

¶3Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an FIR against her in-laws levelling allegation of cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry. During pendency of the case, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 5.5.2022, has directed to the court concerned to verify the compromise, in case, the same is filed by the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 5.5.2022 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash the entire proceeding against the applicants, in criminal case no. 921 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 420, 307, 511, 494, 120-B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2017 registered at Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr pending before the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Court, court no. 3, Bulandshahr. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and they have entered into a compromise by means of compromise deed dated 07.07.2020. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners has prayed that a liberty may be given to the applicants/petitioners to file the original copy of the compromise along with the application before the Court below within a period of one week for the purpose of verification of compromise dated

07.07.2020 entered into between the parties and the court below may be directed to verify the compromise and submit its report before this Court. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners rather they have admitted that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. As prayed, a week's time is granted to the applicants/petitioners to file the original copy of the compromise before the court below and the court below shall verify the same by fixing a date for appearance of all the signatories to the compromise executed on 07.07.2020 and submit its report along with the verified copy of the compromise, by the next date of listing. List this case in the week commencing 04.07.2022. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of aforementioned case shall remain stayed."

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 5.5.2022 passed by this Court, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anoop Shahar, Bulandshahr has submitted a verification report dated 18.10.2022 along with the copy of the compromise application and the compromise verification order dated 7.10.2022. It is apposite to mention that compromise verification order dated 7.10.2022 has been filed by the applicants along with supplementary affidavit dated 17.10.2022, as annexure No. SA-2.

¶5A perusal of the verification report dated 18.10.2022 and the compromise verification order dated 7.10.2022 reveals that both the parties (first informant and all the accused persons) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel.

¶6It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that on the basis of amicable settlement, both the parties were judicial separated by order dated 3.3.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Matrimonial Case No. 492 of 2020, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is next submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and are living peacefully, and there is no grudges between them against each other. Considering the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of the compromise by the court concerned, learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants 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.

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

¶8Learned AGA 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.

¶9Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶10Having considered the compromise verification report dated

18.10.2022, compromise verification order dated 7.10.2022 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.

¶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 entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶12Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad