Rohit Chandna and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20724 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Chandna And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar,Anil Kumar,Samsher Chandra Tripathi Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶2The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1281 of 2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Commissionerate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (State vs. Rohit Chandna & Others), pending before Civil Judge (JD) Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar arising out of Charge-sheet No. 1 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Commissionerate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar submitted in connection with F.I.R. dated 23.02.2021 lodged at Case Crime No. 22 of 2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Commissionerate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶3Instant matter is arisen out of matrimonial bickering. While entertaining the matter, at initial stage, this Court referred it to the mediation centre for exploring the possibility of reconciliation between the parties, however, same was unsuccessful. At later stage, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably on the basis of agreement took place between the parties. In the proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Family Court, Patiala House, Delhi, the matter was referred to the mediation centre. Ultimately, settlement/agreement took place and signed by the parties on

24.12.2022. Both the parties were agreed upon for judicial separation on the final alimony amounting Rs.30 lakhs out of which Rs.20 lakhs was given to opposite party no. 2 (wife) before the Family Court, however, remaining Rs.10 lakhs was expected to be paid at the time of quashing of criminal proceeding being Case Crime No. 22 of 2021, which is under challenge before this Court.

¶4This Court, vide order dated 13.10.2023 has directed the parties concerned to appear in person before the Court so that veracity of compromise and receiving of money by the opposite party no. 2 in compliance of said compromise could be ascertained. For ready reference order dated 13.10.2023 is quoted herein below :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶2It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that instant matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute. Proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decided by order dated 09.08.2023. Both the parties have filed joint affidavit before this Court intending to quash the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties at the time of decree passed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, present applicants have to pay Rs.10 Lakhs at the time of quashing of criminal proceeding which is under challenged before this Court.

¶3Having considered the joint affidavit dated 17.09.2023 filed by the parties, it would be befitting to call upon the parties to verify the veracity of the joint affidavit.

¶4As such, both the parties are hereby directed to personally present before this Court on the next date fixed.

¶5Counsels for both the parties are also hereby directed to ensure the presence of their clients on the next date fixed.

¶6List this matter on 03.11.2023.

¶7Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 13.10.2023, applicant no. 1-Rohit Chandna (husband) and opposite party no. 2-Kaavya Warman (wife) are personally present before this Court who have been identified by their respective counsel. They have made their signature on the margin of the order-sheet. Counsel for the applicants has produced a bank draft of Rs.10 lakhs bearing Demand Draft No. 005930 dated 08.09.2023. Photostat copy of the said demand draft is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20.09.2023. Original bank draft is handed over to opposite party no. 2 (wife) who has accepted and acknowledged receiving of the same. She has made her endorsement in the order-sheet qua receiving of bank draft.

¶6On the premise of payment of remaining alimony amounting Rs.10 lakhs in pursuance of the settlement/agreement dated

24.12.2022, which has been acknowledged by both the parties and on the basis whereof divorce petition has been decided vide judgment dated 09.08.2023, now, nothing remains to be complied with. Both the parties are already judicially separated. On interaction with opposite party no. 2, she has unequivocally stated that she is no more interested to pursue the instant matter against the present applicants.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of settlement/agreement took place between the parties and on the terms and conditions of the compromise wherein remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid to opposite party no. 2 through bank draft, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. There is no grudges between them against each other who have burried the hatchet and they are living separately. 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.

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

¶9Learned A.G.A. 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.

¶10Learned 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 applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶11Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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.

¶12In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement dated

24.12.2022 inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 3.11.2023 VR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad