Sanni Tomar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41628 of 2017 Applicant :- Sanni Tomar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Tomar,Atul Kumar,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan,Mohd. Naushad 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 impugned order dated

24.10.2017 passed by CJM, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 456/2012 of 2017 (Satendra Vs. Sanni and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 324, 406 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhora Kala, District Muzaffar Nagar pending before CJM, Muzaffar Nagar on the basis of compromise.

¶3Having been annoyed with the behaviour of in-laws, father of the bride had lodged an FIR levelling allegation of harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry. Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted final report. On protest petition being filed, learned CJM has passed impugned order dated 24.10.2017 rejecting the final report and issued summons against the accused. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have amicably arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 24.3.2021, has directed the parties to appear before the court below and file compromise application within fifteen days, however, simultaneously learned trial court was directed to verify the said compromise and submit a verification report. For ready reference, the order dated 24.3.2021 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that parties had entered into compromise and seeks time to file compromise deed before the trial court concerned for its verification. In view of above, parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court for filing of compromise deed within fifteen days and Trial Court is directed to get it verified and submit a verification report within a week thereafter. List in the last week of May 2021. Interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by this Court, both the parties have appeared before the court below and filed their compromise. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted a verification report dated

16.7.2021 along with copy of the compromise and compromise verification order dated 13.7.2021 which has been endorsed on the reverse side of the first page of compromise application.

¶6A perusal of the compromise verification order dated 13.7.2021 reveals that both the parties have appeared before the court concerned personally and they have been identified by their respective counsel. They have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise without any duress. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 16.7.2021 and compromise verification order dated 13.7.2021, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance 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 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."

¶9Learned 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.

¶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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶11Having considered the compromise verification report dated

16.7.2021, compromise verification order dated 13.7.2021 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 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.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad