✦ High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

10 Jan 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

4,439 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §320 Code of Criminal Procedure §438 Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Code of Criminal Procedure Constitution of India §320 Constitution of India §482 Constitution of India Indian Penal Code §11 Indian Penal Code §306 Indian Penal Code §307

Cited in this judgment

3. At the outset learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submit that the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 (victim) both are well educated and are doctors by profession and there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court.

4. Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A., submits that he has no objection if the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. The concerned court has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.

5. Accordingly, it is directed that both the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 shall appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 18.09.2024. On that day the applicant shall produce a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Out of the said amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be retained as mediation fee and rest amount shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 by way of expenses for her appearance before the Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre shall proceed with the matter and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.

6. Place the matter along with the report of mediation on 02.12.2024 in the additional cause list amongst top ten cases.

7. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest the applicant- Dr. Utkarsh Singh in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the Mediation Centre of this Court. (ii) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

8. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same."

5. In compliance of above order dated 05.09.2024, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Center, High Court, Allahabad. 3 Ultimately, the parties entered into an amicable settlement. Consequently, the settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024 was drawn between the parties. The photocopy of the said settlement agreement has been sent by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by this Court in present application. For ready reference, the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties is extracted herein below:- " ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 13.11.2024, Dr. Utkarsh Singh (Applicant) and Dr. Priyanka Singh (O.P. No. 2). WHEREAS 1) Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8284 of 2024 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court. 2) The matter was referred for mediation/conciliation vide order dated 05.09.2024 passed by bench of Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J. The order dated 05.09.2024 is quoted below:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1, and Ms. Aarushi Khare, learned cowsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case No. 15031 of 2024, State v. Utkarsh Singh (Case Crime No. 113 of 2024), under Sectiorts 376, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.

3. At the outset learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submit that the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 (victim) both are well educated and are doctors by profession and there are chances of umicable settlement berween the parties, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court.

4. Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A, submits that he has no objection if the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. The concerned court has taken cognizance and summaned the applicant.

5. Accordingly, it is directed that both the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 shall appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 18.09.2024. On that day the applicant shall produce a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Out of the said amount, Rs.5,000/- shall be retained us mediation fee and rest amount shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 by way of expenses for her appearance before the Mediation Centre. The Mediation Centre shall proceed with the matter and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. 4

6. Place the matter along with the report of mediation on 02.12.2024 in the additional cause list amongst top ten cases,

7. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest the applicant-Dr. Utkarsh Singh in the aforesaid case crime shull be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the Mediation Centre of this Court. (ii) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducemem, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

8. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacared and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 3) The parties agreed that Mr. Hemendra Kumar and Ms. Nilam Shukla, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 3355/2024. 4) Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/ Mediation on 18-09-2024, 25-09-2024, 23-10-2024 and 13-11-2024 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences. 5) The Dr. Utkarsh Singh (Applicant) was engaged with Dr. Priyanka Singh (O.P. No. 2) on 22.10.2023, but just after the engagement the dispute arose between the parties and the marriage could not be solemnized. Giving rise to lodging of F.I.R. by O.P. No. 2-Dr. Priyanka Singh against applicant-Dr. Utkarsh Singh, thereafter this Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Aplication was moved by applicant-Dr. Utkarsh Singh. Another Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. bearing No. 37945 of 2024 has also been filed by the applicant-Dr. Utkarsh Singh in Case No. 15031 of 2024 (State Vs. Utkarsh Singh) arising out Case Crime No. 113 of 2024, Under Section 376, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines. District-Prayagraj. 6) The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrive at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator. 7) In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 23.10.2024, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:- a) That Dr. Utkarsh Singh (Applicant) is present along with his counsel Shri Gajendra Singh on the other hand Dr. Priyanka Singh (O.P. No. 2) is also present along with her counsel Anjali Singh. 5 b) That the parties have amicably settled their dispute on the conditions that applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) to the O.P. No. 2. c) That today i.c. 13.11.2024 the applicant-Dr. Utkarsh Singh has produced nine demand drafts amounting to Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) issued in favour of Priyanka Singh and the said nine demand drafts are being handed over to the O.P. No. 2-Dr. Priyanka Singh today and she has acknowledged the receipts of all the nine demand drafts. The details of which are as under:- Sl. No. Issuing Bank Demand Draft Number Date Amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India State Bank of India 313081 313082 313083 313084 313085 313086 313087 560401 560402 05/11/24 05/11/24 05/11/24 05/11/24 05/11/24 05/11/24 05/11/24 04/11/24 04/11/24 Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- d) That as agreed between the parties in para 7 (d) of the interim settlement dated 23.10.2024, the belongings/ornaments have been exchanged between them today i.e. 13.11.2024 and both have accepted the same. e) That in view of the above, the O.P. No. 2-Dr. Priyanka Singh shall have no objection, if the Hon'ble Court pleases to allow the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8284 of 2024 & Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 37945 of 2024. f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that apart from the cases mentioned in this settlement, if any, civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties, concerned by taking appropriate steps."

6. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against state/society. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as is explicit from the settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the Apex Court has 6 now given detailed guidelines with regard to the compromise in criminal matters. As such, compromise can now be entered into by the parties even in respect of cognizable and non-compoundable offences but subject to certain exceptions. However, the case in hand does not within the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of the applicant are not only remote but also bleak. As such, present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant. He submits that once the parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant.

8. Miss Anjali Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 has joined the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A.

9. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have now entered into a compromise in the Mediation and Conciliation proceedings as is evident from the settlement agreement drawn on 13.11.2024. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 7 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414. xvi. K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 384. xvii. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise 8 can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

10. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;

16.2. 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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

16.4. 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;

16.5. 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;

16.6. In the 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 appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences 9 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;

16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. 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;

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

11. In Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19 of the report:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of 10 Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

12. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court has further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the aforementioned report.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that the parties have entered into a compromise, which has also been acted upon by way of settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024. The dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against state or society. The compromise entered into by the parties is not covered under the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court. As such, no legal impediment exists to accept the compromise entered into by the parties. The parties shall be bound by the settlement agreement dated 13.11.2024. In case, there is breach of the settlement agreement by either of the parties then the party aggrieved shall have right to approach the Court by means of an appropriate application. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant is not only remote but also bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

14. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

15. It is, accordingly, allowed.

16. The entire proceedings of Case No. 15031 of 2024 (State VBs. Dr. Utkarsh Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of 2024, under Sections 11 376, 420 IPC, Police Station-Civil Lines, Prayagraj now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad are, hereby, quashed.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Vinay