Sheelu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4569 of 2021 Applicant :- Sheelu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Patel,Vijay Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dilip Kumar Goswami Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA.

¶2The Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of Charge sheet dated

28.10.2020 and cognizance order dated 09.11.2020 and entire proceeding of Case No.2862 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.508 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, on the basis of compromise.

¶3Having been dissatisfied with the behaviour of in laws, respondent no.2 (father of the bride) has lodged an FIR levelling allegation of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry. During pendency of proceedings both the parties have arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court has issued a direction, vide order dated 16.8.2023, to the court below to verify the compromise entered into between the parties. For ready reference the order dated

16.08.2023 is quoted herein below : "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A.

¶2Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 2862 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 508 of 2020 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, along with chargesheet dated 28.10.2020 and cognizance order dated 09.11.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that during pendency of the trial both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise dated 03.03.2022 which has been filed before the Court below. Certified copy of the compromise dated 03.03.2022 has been filed as Annexure No. S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, therefore, present application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶4Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has nodded the factum of the compromise and urged that present application may be decided on the basis of the said compromise.

¶5In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court, before whom compromise application has been filed by the parties, is hereby directed to verify the said compromise, if already filed, however, if not filed, the applicants are at liberty to file fresh compromise application supported by an affidavit, in presence of the parties concerned after recording their statements and submit a verification report before this Court within one month from the date of first appearance of both the parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on

28.08.2023.

¶6List this matter on 04.10.2023, along with verification report submitted by the learned trial court.

¶7Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in the aforesaid case against the present applicants shall remain stayed."

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai has submitted his verification report dated 12.09.2023 with an averment that in pursuance of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court both the parties have appeared before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned who have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified by the Court, vide order dated 28.08.2023. Certified copy of the compromise alongwith the endorsement of compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023 on the reverse side of the first page of the compromise has been filed as Annexure No.S.A.I to the supplementary affidavit dated 03.10.2023.

¶5It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties and verification of compromise by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and living peacefully. They have no grudge against each other. Therefore, to observe the peace and tranquillity in the life of both the parties criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶6To 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 application and compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023 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 application and compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023 took place between 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.

¶10Having considered the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023 took place between the parties 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 application and compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023 arrived at between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

¶12Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 3.11.2023/vkg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad