State v. Ankit Lal ) in which again matter was referred to the mediati
Case Details
Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18651 of 2022 Petitioner :- Tarang Lal @ Tarang Agarwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vatsala Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Dharam Veer Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Vatsala, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Sinha learned A.G.A. for the State. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R dated 17.10.2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0192 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Aliganj, District-Bareilly. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both son of petitioner no.1 Atul Lal and respondent no. 3 are major and they have solemnised their marriage out of their own free will and they are living with each other as husband and wife. They have solemnised their marriage on 23.11.2017. There arises matrimonial dispute between the parties. Husband filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25596 of 2019 and vide order dated 17.12.2019, coordinate Bench of this Court referred the matter to the mediation centre of this Court after providing interim protection to the petitioners. As per the report of the mediation centre dated 11.11.2022, mediation has already succeeded and it has been agreed between the parties that in the meantime the parties shall move withdrawl applications in the cases filed by them against each other regarding present dispute and shall produce the certified copy of the same before the Centre at the time of final settlement. Respondent no. 3 (wife) filed Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 No. 16267 of 2021 for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 951 of 2021 ( State Vs. Ankit Lal ) in which again matter was referred to the mediation centre, Allahabad High Court vide order dated 23.11.2021. In the meantime, on 2.12.2022, parties have entered into a compromise in which it is mentioned that the parties have resolved their dispute through compromise. Learned counsel for the complainant fairly states that as per the settlement agreement dated 2.12.2022, the matter has already been resolved between the parties. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 11.11.2022, 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, 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 afÏrmative, 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, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement dated 11.11.2022.
Decision
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.0192 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Bareilly. are quashed. Order Date :- 9.12.2022 n.u. Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.12.19 14:53:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad