High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203287 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16616 of 2023 Applicant :- Vishal Gautam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. None is present for the opposite party No.2. 3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed beseeching quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.1346 of 2020 (State Vs. Vishal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.21 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C. Agra. 4. Opposite Party No.2 has lodged an FIR levelling allegation of demand of dowry and criminal intimidation against the present applicants. During pendency of the proceedings, both the parties entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement, this Court, vide order dated 05.05.2023 has issued a direction for verification of compromise. 5. For ready reference, order dated 05.05.2023 is quoted herein below:- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 3 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed. 4. Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned which shall be verified by the court concerned within three weeks thereafter and send its report to this Court. 5. List on 3.7.2023. 6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants Vishal Gautam and Smt. Garima Gautam in Case No. 1346 of 2020, State Vs. Vishal and others, Case Crime No.21 of 2020, u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra pending before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Agra." 6. In pursuance of the order dated 05.05.2023 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Agra has submitted its verification report dated 07.07.2023 along with compromise application supported by an affidavit and compromise verification order dated 07.07.2023. Learned trial court, in its verification order, has clearly observed that compromise application has been filed and both the parties have been identified by their respective counsels. The terms of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of the compromise and, accordingly, compromise has been verified. 7. Perusal of the compromise application reveals that one of the accused namely Nirdesh Gautam (mother-in-law) has already died, therefore, compromise took place between the remaining two accused (applicants herein) and the first informant. Perusal of verification order dated 07.07.2023 reveals that both the parties have been identified by their respective counsel. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in view of the compromise took place between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned trial court coupled with the verification order verifying the compromise took place between the parties, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and now living peacefully and 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 recognises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 10. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned. 11. Having considered the verification report dated 07.07.2023 submitted by the learned trial court appended the documents along with other documents 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 proceedings would case oppression and prejudice. 12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad