High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123281 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15722 of 2024 Applicant :- Gautam Anand Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Kumar Mishra,G.A. Connected With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20449 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15722 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the applicant Gautam Anand Mishra with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 22.04.2022, of Case No. 93472 of 2022 (CNR No.:UPKN04-09560/2022), arising out of Case Crime No. 0038 of 2021, under Sections - 498-A, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Southern (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar) Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20449 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicants Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Smt. Usha Mishra with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet of aforesaid case, pending before the aforesaid Court, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. Applicant in application no. 15722 of 2024 is husband of the informant and applicants in application no. 20449 of 2023 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of informant. It was submitted that the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute and both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. The compromise has already been verified by the trial court in application no. 15772 of 2024. It is further submitted that one case was also lodged by applicant Gautam Anand Mishra against opposite party no.2 and her father and that case has also been compromised between the parties. It was submitted that impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. Now, the informant does not want to proceed against the applicants, namely, Gautam Anand Mishra Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Smt. Usha Mishra, in aforesaid case and thus, impugned proceedings may be quashed. 6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter. 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. Thus, it is apparent that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the instant case, it appears that matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which is private in nature and if parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The informant does not want to proceed against applicant in impugned case. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings of the case in question be quashed. Accordingly the impugned charge-sheet and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are, hereby, quashed. 9. Both the aforesaid applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Order Date :- 31.7.2024 S Rawat