High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11584 of 2022 Applicant :- Sheena Jindal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh,Rishi Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard Sri Nipun Singh and Sri Rishi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Ms. Sushma Soni, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case. By way of present application, the applicant made prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 790 of 2022 (State Vs. Sachit Garg and others) and charge-sheet dated 22.11.2021 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 20.01.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh agar pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-I, Gautam Budh Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the present is Sheena Jindal, who herself lodged FIR of the present case against opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of applicant respectively and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as the matter between the parties have already been settled and they have agreed to file an application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce with mutual consent and on their application filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, the competent court has already passed the decree of divorce, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the trial of the present case pending and she (applicant) is although informant of the case, but does not want to proceed further with the matter, as all the disputes with her husband and her in-laws have already been settled. Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 also submits that a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the applicant and her husband (opposite party no.2) on 05.04.2022 and in this petition it is specifically mentioned in paragraph no. 18 that if the proceedings of the present case be quashed then applicant (informant of the case) is having no objection if the terms of the compromise entered into between the parties will comply. He further submitted that as the terms of the compromise dated 25.04.2022, which is itself a divorce petition moved under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act has already complied with and no dispute remained left between opposite party no.2, therefore, it would be an abuse to continue the proceeding of the present case Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also pointed out that in view of the compromise/Section 13B divorce petition on 10.05.2022 Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar has already passed an order and by that order a decree of divorce under Section 13B has been passed and while passing the order dated 10.05.2022, court below specifically observed that as between both the parties, matter have already been settled and there is no dispute left between the parties, therefore, the decree of divorce on mutual consent is being passed, therefore, counsel for both the parties submits that in view of the compromise dated 05.04.2022, which is also the divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and order dated 10.05.2022 by which divorce decree was passed by the court below proceeding of the present case should be quashed. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that perusal of the FIR and other documents on record prima facie discloses offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, but he could not dispute the fact that complainant of the case, namely, Sheena Jindal herself want to quash the proceedings of her case and further that by way of compromise the matters between both the parties have already been settle and no dispute remains left between them and further an application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act was jointly filed by applicant and opposite party no.2 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar on 10.05.2022 and Principal Judge passed divorce decree under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, if any order is passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties then he is having no objection. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. The present dispute is admittedly matrimonial one and applicant in this case herself is complainant of the case and she herself does not want to proceed the matter and further, she herself prays to quash the proceedings of the present case on the basis of the compromise dated 05.04.2022 entered into between her and her husband (opposite party no.2). In the present case offence under Section 498A IPC is non- compoundable. The three judges bench of the Apex Court 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." Again, 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." Thus, from the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is apparent that on the basis of compromise proceedings arise out of matrimonial relationship can be quashed by this Court while exercising its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. even the non- compoundable offences. As, present case arises out of matrimonial relationship, therefore, although even if the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, but as the matter has already been amicably settled between both the parties and applicant has already been divorced through mutual consent, therefore, in my view proceedings pending against the opposite parties in the Court of Civil Judge, (J.D.)/F.T.C.-I, Gautam Budh Nagar is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise/settlement dated 05.04.2022 entered into the parties. In view of above, the proceedings of Case No. 790 of 2022 (State Vs. Sachit Garg and others) and charge-sheet dated 22.11.2021 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 20.01.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh agar pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-I, Gautam Budh Nagar is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Order Date :- 23.5.2022 AK Pandey Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.05.28 11:27:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad