Allahabad High Court
Dr. Abhishek Verma @ Abhishek Kumar And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 October, 2020
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17149 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dr. Abhishek Verma @ Abhishek Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Pandey,Brij Bhushan Pandey,Shobhit Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shobhit Pathak Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the the petitioners, Sri Shobhit Pathak, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Gambir Singh, learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioners, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2019 registered as Case Crime No.265 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nazibabad, District Bijnore.
Two Demand Drafts of Rs.10 lacs, each (D.D. Nos.002484 and 002485) drawn in favour of respondent no.4 are handed over to respondent no.4 and in acknowledgement thereof, she appended her signatures on the order-sheet.
It is jointly stated that this case is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute but on account of intervention of well-wishers, same has come to be amicably settled on the terms and conditions, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the compromise affidavit.
A perusal of the aforesaid indicates that respondent no.4 has agreed that upon payment of Rs.30 lacs, the F.I.R. would stand quashed, out of which a sum of Rs.20 lacs has been tendered to her in the Court, and the balance of Rs.10 lacs would be paid to her after a decree is passed under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, to which both the parties jointly state that they shall render full cooperation and assistance in filing of the same.
Learned counsels thus jointly submit that in the view of above no fruitful purpose would be served, to continue with the proceedings, which are liable to be quashed in the light of the Judgments of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
The Court has perused the compromise dated 27.02.2020, recorded between the husband and wife, and there is no legal impediment for the same being given effect to. There is no reason why aforesaid proposition, would not hold good in the instant case as the dispute between the husband and wife, neither involves any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement dated 27.02.2020, authenticity of which is not under challenge.
In these circumstances, when respondent No.4 is no longer desirous of prosecuting the above F.IR. against the petitioners, to permit the petitioners to face prosecution in the face of compromise dated 27.02.2020, would be an abuse of the process, as no evidence would be forthcoming to nail the petitioners. With the quashment, not only the ends of justice are served, but further abuse of the process of the Court, is also prevented.
The writ petition is allowed. The F.I.R. dated 22.05.2019 registered as Case Crime No.265 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nazibabad, District Bijnore as well as all consequential proceedings, stand quashed.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Radhika