Sandeep v. State of U.P.) u/s

1. Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to direct the Lower Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor to accept the compromise dated

18.10.2024 and decide the pending Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.) u/s 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bijnor, arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2013, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor, on the basis of the compromise.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was convicted vide order dated 03.01.2024 in Case No. 1954 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2013 by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC (offences against women), Court No. 2, District- Bijnor. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 which is pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor. During the pendency of the appeal, parties have settled their dispute amicably and a written compromise dated 18.10.2024 has also been entered into between them and compromise has already been filed before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor but the court below is not accepting the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 has observed that even during pendency of appeal, proceedings can be quashed when the settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 wherein the Apex Court has observed that even if the proceeding is pending before the appellate court, the proceeding can be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) has observed in paragraph no. 10 which is as under :

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P.6, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CЛ & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal (supra) has observed in paragraph nos. 13 and 19 which are as under : “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.”

6. From the legal position discussed above, it is clear that even after the conviction, non-compoundable cases which are not serious in nature can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) even during the pendency of an appeal against the conviction. Therefore, there is no bar to quash the proceeding as well as conviction order on the basis of compromise if offence is not serious in nature.

7. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with direction to the appellate court where the Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 is pending to verify the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties after summoning the parties within a period of two months from the date of receiving copy of this order. After verification of the aforesaid compromise, the appellate court may permit the parties to obtain certified copy of the same.

8. For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

9. It is further provided that applicant is at liberty to file fresh application u/s 528 B.N.S.S., if required, to quash the proceeding in question and conviction order on the basis of verified compromise/settlement. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 KS

1. Heard Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to direct the Lower Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor to accept the compromise dated

18.10.2024 and decide the pending Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 (Sandeep Vs. State of U.P.) u/s 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bijnor, arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2013, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor, on the basis of the compromise.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was convicted vide order dated 03.01.2024 in Case No. 1954 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2013 by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC (offences against women), Court No. 2, District- Bijnor. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 which is pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor. During the pendency of the appeal, parties have settled their dispute amicably and a written compromise dated 18.10.2024 has also been entered into between them and compromise has already been filed before the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTC II, Bijnor but the court below is not accepting the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 has observed that even during pendency of appeal, proceedings can be quashed when the settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 wherein the Apex Court has observed that even if the proceeding is pending before the appellate court, the proceeding can be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) has observed in paragraph no. 10 which is as under :

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P.6, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CЛ & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a court under Section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal (supra) has observed in paragraph nos. 13 and 19 which are as under : “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).

19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.”

6. From the legal position discussed above, it is clear that even after the conviction, non-compoundable cases which are not serious in nature can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) even during the pendency of an appeal against the conviction. Therefore, there is no bar to quash the proceeding as well as conviction order on the basis of compromise if offence is not serious in nature.

7. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with direction to the appellate court where the Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 is pending to verify the aforesaid compromise entered into between the parties after summoning the parties within a period of two months from the date of receiving copy of this order. After verification of the aforesaid compromise, the appellate court may permit the parties to obtain certified copy of the same.

8. For a period of two months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

9. It is further provided that applicant is at liberty to file fresh application u/s 528 B.N.S.S., if required, to quash the proceeding in question and conviction order on the basis of verified compromise/settlement. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 KS