High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11114 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Legal Reasoning
The matter is listed under the head "Matters in which mediation succeeded in settlement between the parties
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. Present matter was taken up on 24.11.2021 and on the said date, following interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioners:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 09.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No.236 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Balua, Distt. Chandauli. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Issue notice to the opposite party no.4, returnable at an early date. Steps may be taken within a week.
Decision
In view of the above, it is directed that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court out of which Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no.4, on the date fixed, for her appearance before the Mediation Centre and Rs. 5000/- shall be retained by the Mediation Centre as mediation fee. The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that after deposit of such amount, by the petitioners, it shall issue notice to the parties fixing some date for mediation and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. List after expiry of aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in the above mentioned case. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter." In response thereof, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement agreement took place on 11.10.2021 between Pradeep Kumar/petitioner no.1 (husband) and Smt. Arti Devi/respondent no.4 (wife). Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that till date, no charge sheet has been submitted in the matter and petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4 have decided to dissolve the marriage as per the terms and conditions of settlement agreement dated 11.10.2022. Learned counsel for the respondent has given a nod to the said situation. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 11.10.2022, duly verified by the parties and their counsels before the Mediation Centre, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, then between notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; the parties, "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 09.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No.236 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Balua, Distt. Chandauli are quashed. Order Date :- 24.11.2022 A. Pandey Digitally signed by ANAND PANDEY Date: 2022.11.30 09:18:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad