High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35963-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10178 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rahul And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish Dev Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Mishra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. Present matter was taken up on 24.06.2024 and on the said date, following interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioners:- "1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, however, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is not present and perused the record. 3. The quintessence of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that matrimonial dispute is in the genesis of this case. There are chances of amicable settlement between the parties. Petitioners counsel strenuously urged that this case may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court so that the litigants may have a chance to settle their dispute on their own terms through mediation. 4. The Court is satisfied on the basis of record and the submissions made before it that the nature of litigation is such that the chances to resolve the matter through process of conciliation do exist and an attempt ought to be made to explore that possibility. 5. Accordingly, the matter is being referred to the Mediation Centre Allahabad. The petitioners will deposit Rs. 20,000/- within four weeks at the Mediation Centre. In case the amount is deposited, the Mediation Centre will issue notices to both the parties returnable within a period of four weeks. Out of the same Rs.15,000/- will be paid to respondent no.4 for subsistence and to meet out the expenses. The mediator is allowed two months' time to find out possible solution of the dispute between the parties and send his report to the court regarding the outcome of mediation. 6. List this case before the appropriate Bench along with report of the mediator on 25.09.2024. 7. Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 21.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.105 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chhajalait, District Moradabad, provided the petitioners file the receipt of deposit of amount as directed above along with the present order. 8. It is made clear that in case of default in depositing the amount as ordered above or on non-participation of the petitioners in the mediation proceedings, the interim stay order shall stand automatically vacated. 9. This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard with this Bench." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response of the aforesaid order, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement agreement took place on 20.12.2024 between petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.4 (wife). The settlement agreement is appended alongwith the report of the Incharge, Mediation Centre. 4. It is submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved under the settlement agreement dated 20.12.2024, 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. 5. 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 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." 6. 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 20.12.2024.
Decision
7. The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime No.105 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chhajalait, District Moradabad are quashed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RKP . (Prashant Kumar, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad