Kiran Gupta v. Deepak Gupta)

Judgment

1. Heard Mr. Anand Swaroop Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.144188/23 (State vs. Deepak Gupta and Others), in Case Crime No.0023/2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Barra, District- South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants had made a submission that parties have amicably settled the dispute and entered into compromise, therefore, on 04.09.2024, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are present. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Matter relates to matrimonial dispute between the parties. Earlier both the parties have compromised the matter and as per terms of compromise, applicant no. 1 has to pay Rs. 8,50,000/- to the informant and out of which, an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been paid to the informant and a petition was filed for divorce on the ground of mutual consent but later on the informant has back-tracked from her consent in the said petition. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Put up as fresh on 30.09.2024.”

4. On 07.11.2024, as per terms and conditions, learned counsel for the applicants was ready to come up with a draft of remaining amount in favour of opposite party no.2 as pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, therefore, following order was passed:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Rs.4,50,000/- has already been paid to the informant and he will come up with a draft of the rest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by the next date in favour of the opposite party no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the aforesaid.

4. Put up this case, as fresh, on 29th November, 2024.”

5. There was some differences between the parties as some of the conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, on 17.01.2025, the following order was passed:- “Heard Mr. Anand Swaroop Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. As per terms of compromise, applicant no.1 (husband) has to pay Rs.8,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and out of which, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has already been paid to the opposite party no.2. Today, learned counsel for the applicants has come up with a draft of Rs.4,00,000/- bearing Draft No.501828 dated 26.12.2024 issued from ICICI Bank in favour of opposite party no.2-Kiran Gupta. The aforesaid demand draft is retained on record of the Court. The applicant no.1 namely, Deepak Gupta (husband) and the opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Kiran Gupta (wife) are present in the Court today, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsels. They state that they will appear before the court concerned for recording of their statements and agree that after the compromise is verified, the draft so retained by the Court, shall be handed over to Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application as well as certified copy of this order on 27.01.2025 for getting their statements recorded for the purpose of verification of compromise. It is expected that the trial 2 court, after recording statements of parties, may pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicants shall come up with a certified copy of the order vide which compromise is verified on the next date fixed. On the said date, the aforesaid draft shall be handed over to Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Put up this case on 05.02.2025, as fresh. Office is directed to keep the aforesaid Demand Draft safely and produce it before the Court when the case is listed on 05.02.2025. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.”

6. Today, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has produced certified copy of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in the present proceedings, which is kept on record.

7. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that statement of opposite party no.2 has been recorded before the Court concerned wherein she has stated that she does not want to proceed with the case, in case the terms and conditions of the compromise are fulfilled.

8. Today, Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, is present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel. She states that in case remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid to her, she does not want to proceed with any of the case which have been filed by her.

9. List of cases which have been filed by Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, against the applicants, are as follows:- Case No.1211/2024 (Kiran vs. Deepak Gupta), filed

1. u/s 125 Cr.P.C. family Court. Case No.1441168/2023 (Sakar vs. Deepak Gupta & 2. other), filed u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Kanpur.

3. Case No.2763/2019 in Family Court. 3 Case No.2140/2023 (Kiran Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta)

4. filed u/s 13-B Hindu Marriage Act-Dismiss, Kanpur Nagar. Case No.23072/2018 (Smt. Kiran Gupta vs. Deepak 5. Gupta), filed u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Barra, Kanpur. Decided on 04.10.2023.

10. In view of the statement made before the Court concerned by opposite party no.2 as detailed in the order dated 27.01.2025 as well as statement given before this Court all the cases shall be deemed to be withdrawn by the opposite party no.2. Needless to say that applicants may move an application along with certified copy of this order which shall be taken into consideration, not calling for opposite party no.2 to come before the Court concerned and her statement as given before this Court shall be taken as statement before the concerned Court.

11. The draft of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 26.12.2024, bearing Cheque No.501828, issued by ICICI Bank, Branch Kanpur, in the name of Kiran Gupta is handed over to Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, in presence of Mr. Anand Swaroop Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in the open Court, which is being acknowledged by Ms. Kiran Gupta. Photo-copy of the aforesaid draft is retained.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another vs. State of Rajasthan report on 2022 Law Suit(SC) 463 and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar vs. State of U.P. and another 4 decided on 28.07.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.10258 of

13. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above and statement given by Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

14. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or 5 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

15. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

17. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, 6 based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

18. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The present case is also a case where two societal interests are in clash. To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society and for societal interest, then, wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that Ms. Kiran Gupta opposite party no.2 has stated before this Court that she does not want to proceed with the case against the applicants and have withdrawn all cases which have been filed by her against the applicants. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

20. Accordingly, in view of the statement given by Ms. Kiran Gupta- opposite party no.2, proceeding of Case No.144188/23 (State vs. Deepak Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0023/2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Barra, District-South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.

21. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Rahul. 7

Learned counsel for the applicants had made a submission that parties have amicably settled the dispute and entered into compromise, therefore, on 04.09.2024, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are present. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Matter relates to matrimonial dispute between the parties. Earlier both the parties have compromised the matter and as per terms of compromise, applicant no. 1 has to pay Rs. 8,50,000/- to the informant and out of which, an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been paid to the informant and a petition was filed for divorce on the ground of mutual consent but later on the informant has back-tracked from her consent in the said petition. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Put up as fresh on 30.09.2024.”

4. On 07.11.2024, as per terms and conditions, learned counsel for the applicants was ready to come up with a draft of remaining amount in favour of opposite party no.2 as pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, therefore, following order was passed:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Rs.4,50,000/- has already been paid to the informant and he will come up with a draft of the rest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by the next date in favour of the opposite party no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the aforesaid.

4. Put up this case, as fresh, on 29th November, 2024.”

5. There was some differences between the parties as some of the conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, on 17.01.2025, the following order was passed:- “Heard Mr. Anand Swaroop Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. As per terms of compromise, applicant no.1 (husband) has to pay Rs.8,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and out of which, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has already been paid to the opposite party no.2. Today, learned counsel for the applicants has come up with a draft of Rs.4,00,000/- bearing Draft No.501828 dated 26.12.2024 issued from ICICI Bank in favour of opposite party no.2-Kiran Gupta. The aforesaid demand draft is retained on record of the Court. The applicant no.1 namely, Deepak Gupta (husband) and the opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Kiran Gupta (wife) are present in the Court today, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsels. They state that they will appear before the court concerned for recording of their statements and agree that after the compromise is verified, the draft so retained by the Court, shall be handed over to Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with an application as well as certified copy of this order on 27.01.2025 for getting their statements recorded for the purpose of verification of compromise. It is expected that the trial 2 court, after recording statements of parties, may pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicants shall come up with a certified copy of the order vide which compromise is verified on the next date fixed. On the said date, the aforesaid draft shall be handed over to Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Put up this case on 05.02.2025, as fresh. Office is directed to keep the aforesaid Demand Draft safely and produce it before the Court when the case is listed on 05.02.2025. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.”

6. Today, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has produced certified copy of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in the present proceedings, which is kept on record.

7. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that statement of opposite party no.2 has been recorded before the Court concerned wherein she has stated that she does not want to proceed with the case, in case the terms and conditions of the compromise are fulfilled.

8. Today, Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, is present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel. She states that in case remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid to her, she does not want to proceed with any of the case which have been filed by her.

9. List of cases which have been filed by Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, against the applicants, are as follows:- Case No.1211/2024 (Kiran vs. Deepak Gupta), filed

1. u/s 125 Cr.P.C. family Court. Case No.1441168/2023 (Sakar vs. Deepak Gupta & 2. other), filed u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Kanpur.

3. Case No.2763/2019 in Family Court. 3 Case No.2140/2023 (Kiran Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta)

4. filed u/s 13-B Hindu Marriage Act-Dismiss, Kanpur Nagar. Case No.23072/2018 (Smt. Kiran Gupta vs. Deepak 5. Gupta), filed u/s 12 Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Barra, Kanpur. Decided on 04.10.2023.

10. In view of the statement made before the Court concerned by opposite party no.2 as detailed in the order dated 27.01.2025 as well as statement given before this Court all the cases shall be deemed to be withdrawn by the opposite party no.2. Needless to say that applicants may move an application along with certified copy of this order which shall be taken into consideration, not calling for opposite party no.2 to come before the Court concerned and her statement as given before this Court shall be taken as statement before the concerned Court.

11. The draft of Rs.4,00,000/- dated 26.12.2024, bearing Cheque No.501828, issued by ICICI Bank, Branch Kanpur, in the name of Kiran Gupta is handed over to Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, in presence of Mr. Anand Swaroop Gautam, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kumar Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in the open Court, which is being acknowledged by Ms. Kiran Gupta. Photo-copy of the aforesaid draft is retained.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another vs. State of Rajasthan report on 2022 Law Suit(SC) 463 and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar vs. State of U.P. and another 4 decided on 28.07.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.10258 of

13. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above and statement given by Ms. Kiran Gupta, opposite party no.2, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

14. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or 5 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

15. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

17. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, 6 based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

18. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The present case is also a case where two societal interests are in clash. To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society and for societal interest, then, wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that Ms. Kiran Gupta opposite party no.2 has stated before this Court that she does not want to proceed with the case against the applicants and have withdrawn all cases which have been filed by her against the applicants. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

20. Accordingly, in view of the statement given by Ms. Kiran Gupta- opposite party no.2, proceeding of Case No.144188/23 (State vs. Deepak Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0023/2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Barra, District-South Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.

21. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Rahul. 7