High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3892 of 2022 Applicant :- Haroon Rashid And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
Sri Prem Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Digambar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 has been filed by Sri Digambar Dwivedi but in spite of that his name could not be shown in the cause list. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prem Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Digambar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record of the case. By way of present application, applicants made a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 411 of 2017 as well as summoning order datd 03.12.2018, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-II, Sant Kabir Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that present dispute is matrimonial dispute and applicant no.1, the husband and opposite party no.2, the wife have settled their dispute amicably and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, court below duly verified the compromise executed between them and at present there is no dispute left between them and opposite party no.2 is not interested to proceed further on merits of the case and she is having no objection if proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed on the basis of compromise. He next submitted that report of the court below regarding verification of the compromise is on record, therefore, proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between applicant no.1, the husband and opposite party no.2, the wife. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and pursuant to the order passed by this Court compromise executed between applicant no.1, the husband and opposite party no.2 has been duly verified and verification report is also on record and opposite party no.2 is having no objection if proceedings pending against the applicants is quashed on the basis of compromise executed between them. He next submitted that opposite party no.2 herself does not want to proceed further on the merits of the case. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that from the perusal of the complaint and other material on record, prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. He next submitted that as offence under Section 498A IPC is non compoundable offence, therefore, it would not be desirable to quash the proceedings pending against the applicants, however, he could not dispute the fact that both the parties have already settled their dispute amicably and the compromise executed between them has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 while applicant no.2 is her father-in-law and applicant no.3 is brother of applicant no.1. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute and when applicants challenged the proceedings of the present case pending against them before this Court in the instant application, then on 19.05.2022 this Court directed that both the parties will appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise and further direction was given to the court below to verify the compromise executed between them. Pursuant to the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by this Court both the parties appeared before the court below and court below after verification of the compromise submitted its report to this Court, which is on record and marked as Flag-A. From the perusal of the report dated 08.06.2022, which is marked as Flag A submitted by Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC- II/Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, it reflects that both the parties appeared before the court below and compromise executed between them has been duly verified, therefore, from the perusal of the record it is apparent that compromise executed between both the parties has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 19.05.2022. Although, offence under Section 498A IPC is non compoundable offence but law in this regard is settled that in case of matrimonial dispute, proceeding can be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. The three Judged Bench of Apex Court in in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:- "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, 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 herein-above; (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 impact 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." Recently, the Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgements observed in para-19 as follows:- "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 extra ordinary 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." As present dispute is purely matrimonial dispute and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and from the judgments and law laid down by the Apex Court the proposition of law is settled that even in non compoundable cases, in which, dispute is purely matrimonial one, proceeding on the basis of compromise can be quashed. In view thereof, the proceedings pending against the applicants in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of settlement/compromise made between the parties concerned. Order Date :- 1.9.2022 AK Pandey Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.09.03 13:09:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad