High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197215 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37938 of 2024 Applicant :- Nitin Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Tripathi,Sandeep Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.03.2022, summoning order dated 02.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.24723 of 2022 (State Vs. Nitin Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2021, under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Tiwaripur, District- Gorakhpur, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Gorakhpur. 3. On 11.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing of charge- sheet dated 13.03.2022, cognizance/ summoning order dated 02.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 24723 of 2022 (State Vs. Nitin Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Gorakhpur. Mr. Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the matter relates to matrimonial discord between husband and wife. There are fair chances of compromise between the parties. They, therefore, submit that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be in the interest of both the parties that the matter may be mediated by this Court. On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, put up this case as fresh on 25.11.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants shall ensure presence of applicant No.1 (husband) and opposite party no.2 (wife) before this Court on the said date. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants." 4. In compliance of the order dated 11.11.2024, applicant no.1- Nitin Tiwari and opposite party no.2 Indu Tiwari, opposite party no.2 are present before this Court. They have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by learned counsel for the applicants. Opposite party no.2- Indu Tiwari has stated before this Court that she has been convinced by her husband Nitin Tiwari that he will not harass her in any manner physically or mentally and he will perform all duties as a responsible husband. She further stated that on the assurance as given by applicant no.1, she is ready and willing to go and resides with him as with the arrangement made by him as promised. She next states that she wishes to withdraw the present case and does not want to proceed with the case. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and deposed before this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. Opposite party no.2 also states that she has not engaged any counsel as she herself is present before this Court to make the statement. 5. On query being raised, applicant no.1, Nitin Tiwari has stated before this Court that he will take his wife along with his two daughters with him and make all proper arrangements so that the family stays happily. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of amicable settlement between the parties and in view of the statement given by opposite party no.2, 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. 7. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. 8. 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 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." 9. 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. 10. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, 11. 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. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 12. 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 the Indu Tiwari wife of applicant no.1, herself, has stated before this Court that she has married the applicant no.1 and she is ready to go and resides with applicant no.1 and wishes to withdraw the case. 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. 13. Accordingly, the proceedings of charge-sheet dated 13.03.2022, summoning order dated 02.07.2022 as well as Case No.24723 of 2022 (State Vs. Nitin Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2021, under Sections 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Tiwaripur, District- Gorakhpur, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Gorakhpur, on the basis of compromise/ statement of opposite party no.2 given before this Court, are hereby quashed. 14. It shall be open for opposite party no. 2 to move an application by herself or through her counsel, in case the applicant no.1 namely, Nitin Tiwari (husband) does not fulfill the promise made by him and harass her in any manner. 15. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Abhishek Singh