High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113828 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14892 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankur Thakur And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Yadav,Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 04.11.2019 and cognizance-summoning order dated 06.06.2020, of
Legal Reasoning
criminal case No. 7368 of 2020, arising out of case crime no. 053 of 2019, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad, pending in the court of J.M., Moradabad on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Legal Reasoning
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is husband of the daughter of opposite party no. 2/informant and applicant nos. 2 to 6 are family members of applicant no. 1. The informant has lodged the first information report against applicants, alleging that the marriage of his daughter was fixed with applicant no. 1 Ankur Thakur and engagement has also taken place but thereafter applicants started demanding Rs. 20 lacs for solemnizing marriage. The first information report was registered under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the first information report there was no allegation of rape. It was submitted that during investigation, the victim has made false statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that after her engagement, applicant no. 1 has pressurized her to establish physical relations with her. Referring to statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that there is no such clear allegation that applicant no. 1 has committed rape upon her and thus, in view of these facts, no case under Section 376 IPC is made out. It was further submitted that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and they have married with each other and the certificate of registration of marriage has also been annexed along with this application. It was submitted that the compromise, filed by the parties before the trial court concerned, has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is also on record. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement, is concerned, in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its earlier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 [Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 vide Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under: "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the first information report of this case was registered under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. There was no allegation of rape in the first information report. During investigation, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., victim has stated that after her engagement, applicant no. 1 has pressurized her to establish physical relations with her. Victim is a major lady and there is no such categorical statement that applicant no. 1 has committed rape upon her. Now the victim and applicant no. 1 have married with each other and compromised the matter. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Though normally the criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise but in the instant matter, it appears that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out and essentially the matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature and if parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. As the victim has already married with applicant no. 1 and she is residing with him, thus, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the applicants to trial as both the parties have already compromised the matter. Considering all attending facts of the matter, a case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, including charge-sheet/cognizance-summoning order of the aforesaid criminal case are, hereby, quashed. 9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Anand