High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107139 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12826 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Dharmendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Adarsh Srivastava,G.A.,Manoj Kumar Dubey,Pranshu Gupta,Reena Pal Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit today in the Court which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly. 2. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record on Board. 3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Charge Sheet dated 06.06.2022 and 04.11.2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 22.11.2022 in Criminal Case No.20057 of 2022 (State Vs. Gangawati and others), arising out of Case Crime No.584 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 4. It is submitted that the instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. Instant application has been moved on behalf of the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. To explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 20.04.2023, has referred the matter before the Mediation Centre. For ready reference, order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Court, is quoted herein below :- "This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20057 of 2022, State vs. Gangawati and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 584 of 2021), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 & 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. Without going into the merits of the applicants' case at this stage, since the matter is a matrimonial dispute between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.3, who are husband and wife, it is desirable that the parties be required to attempt a re-conciliation of their differences with the assistance of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Learned counsel for the applicants is in agreement with the aforesaid course of action. It is directed that applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court of which Rs. 8,000/- would be paid to the opposite party no. 3 for appearance before the Mediation Centre. Upon deposit aforesaid being made good, the Mediation Centre will issue notice to both the parties fixing an early date for appearance and further proceedings before the Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit their report within two months from the date parties are required to first appear before the Centre. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 17.07.2023. Till the next date of listing, the further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 20057 of 2022, State vs. Gangawati and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 584 of 2021), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 & 307 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, shall remain stayed. In case, the requisites are not deposited as directed, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated." 5. Both the parties were appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court. The mediation process was successful and understanding arrived at between the parties has been reduced to writing by Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2023. According to the Settlement Agreement, husband was liable to pay Rs. 12 lacs; out of said promised amount Rs. 6 lacs was given to the wife before the Mediation Centre and remaining 6 lacs was directed to be paid at the time of final judgment before the Principal Judge Family Court, Hapur. 6. This Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024, has directed the present applicant to deposit Rs. 6 lacs before the court below. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the bank draft of Rs. 6 lacs has been deposited on 08.08.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that he is satisfied with the settlement agreement and the remaining six lacs has been deposited through bank draft before the family court. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. 9. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot approximately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 10. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is finally decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that settlement agreement was made before Mediation and Conciliation Centre in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no.2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 12. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 13. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement agreement dated 22.11.2023 took place between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Hon'ble Court, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court for necessary action. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Mini Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad