Allahabad High Court
Sameer Chandna vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2020
Author: Umesh Kumar
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9743 of 2020 Applicant :- Sameer Chandna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devesh Vikram Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 133 of 2017 ( State Vs. Sameer Chandra and others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8 Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, police Station Mahila Thana district, Ghaziabad, on the ground that matrimonial disputes in between the parties have been settled amicably.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA and perused the materials available on record Submission of learned Counsel for the applicant is that on account of some differences, the parties were living separately since 23.06.2016 and now there is no possibility of living them together and the parties have now amicably resolved all the disputes pertaining to their marriage including 'Stridhan', permanent alimony, dowry articles and maintenance. In this respect, an agreement between the parties has been signed on 19.08.2019 before the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad, U.P. and subsequently readjusted on 17.09.2019 and pursuant thereof, the opposite party no.2 who has filed an affidavit before the Court on 8.02.2020 which is available on record. A perusal of para-5,6 and 9 of the affidavit, it appears that every thing is settled between the parties. Argument of learned Counsel for the applicant is that order dated 21.01.2020 passed in Divorce petition and order dated 17.09.2019 passed in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are available on record. The opposite party no.2 in para-9 of her affidavit filed before this Court has averred that since the matrimonial dispute has been settled on account of mediation agreement, hence she has no objection if the proceedings of Case No. 133 of 2017 referred above pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 8, Ghaziabad is quashed subject to the realization of the post dated cheque as per the settlement agreement.
Learned Counsel in support of his arguments that in the event parties in matrimonial disputes arrive on compromise, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed, has placed reliance on the decision in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2003(4), Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI, JT 2008(9) SC 192, the order dated 8.8.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.No. 27720 of 2019( Alok Jaiswal Vs. State).
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2(wife) has submitted before the Court that as the matter has been settled by way of compromise between the parties, he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. Learned Counsel for both the parties also submitted at the Bar that the parties shall comply with the terms and conditions of settlement agreement in its true perspective.
The ambit and scope of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in respect to prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings, came to be considered by the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryaya and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 which was a matrimonial matter. Learned Counsel drew the attention of the Court towards the observations made in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy, (1997) 2 SCC, which reads as under;
"10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. ...that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) It was further noted :-
"What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides".
In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others Vs. Sambhaji-rao Chandrojirao Angre and others,(1988)1 SCC 692 The Apex Court observed that while inherent power of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is for the High Court to take into consideration special features of a particular matter to consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and useful purpose is likely to be served, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings.
In this connection, it would be relevant to take note of the decision of Apex Court in G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others ( 2000) 3 SCC 693, to determine the approach required to be kept in mind, in matrimonial disputes by the Courts, wherein it was observed that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The marriage is a sacred ceremony with the purpose that young couples may settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly escalate which often assume serious proportions resulting in omission of heinous offences in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in the Court of law where it takes years and years to concluded and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different Courts.
The Apex Court in Parbhatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujrat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down certain criteria for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by observing that:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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;
(vi) 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 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;
(vii) 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;
(viii) 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;
(ix) 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
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) 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."
The purpose and object of criminal law is to bring the offender to certain consequences. He may be taken to suffer punishment or pay compensation to the victim, but it may not be necessary in every criminal proceedings in heinous offences. But if the offender and victim in a matrimonial matter willing to settle their disputes in terms of settlement agreement, in the present case, taking note of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court referred here in above, I think that interest of justice would be met, in the event prayer of the parties is accepted and criminal proceedings and other litigations between the parties relating to matrimonial disputes is brought to an end. After arriving at settlement by way of compromise, no useful purpose is likely to be served by permitting a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue.
On the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would now be served in continuing the criminal proceedings after the disputes having been resolved by way of compromise between the parties (husband and wife) and thus, this application is liable to be allowed.
The application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 133 of 2017 ( State Vs. Sameer Chandra and others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8 Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police Station Mahila Thana district, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Shahid