State v. Shivnath and others) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61306 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33029 of 2016 Applicant :- Shivnath Kurmi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Balendra Deo Misra,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri S.K.Mishra, who has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of the victim and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 20.08.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.5041 of 2016 (State v. Shivnath and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0450 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 120B IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Narahat, District Lalitpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 and the daughter of have solemnized their marriage and from the said wedlock a male child was born, who is at present about 5 years of age. They are living together as husband and wife and as such, the entire proceedings of this case are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the victim submits that the victim is living with applicant no.1 happily, therefore, the instant proceedings may be quashed. 5. It is jointly submitted that once the applicant no.1 and the daughter of opposite party no.2 have solemnized their marriage and from the said wedlock a child was also born, they are living happily as husband and wife, the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble 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. 6. The Hon'ble 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, between the parties, then 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 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." 7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the applicant no.1 and the daughter of opposite party no.2 are major, they have performed marriage and the victim has herself filed an affidavit that she is living with applicant no.1 happily and does not want to prosecute the applicants.
Decision
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that no offence under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants as both are enjoying their matrimonial life and living together as husband and wife. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the chargesheet dated 20.08.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.5041 of 2016 (State v. Shivnath and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0450 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366A, 376, 120B IPC & Section 4 POCSO Act, P.S. Narahat, District Lalitpur are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad