Allahabad High Court
Ram Alias Mayank And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70106 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15346 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Alias Mayank And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Apoorv Gupta,Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1.Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Vijay Shankar Yadav, on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and it is take on record.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vijay Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application has been filed to quash quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 709 of 2021 (State vs. Mayank @ Ram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0026 of 202 including summoning order dated 16.07.2021, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, district-Agra, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court First, Agra.
4. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is the matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 has culminated into the impugned proceeding, which is under challenge.
5. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the applicant as well learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that that parties have settled their dispute amicably and a settlement agreement dated 07.12.2024 has also been entered between them before the mediation centre of the Family Court Tis Hazari, Delhi. A copy of the same has been annexed at page 68 of the paper book.
6. In view of above settlement agreement parties have decided to live separately and the applicant no. 1 has to pay a permanent alimony of Rs. 5,30,000/- and out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been paid by the applicant to opposite party no. 2, remaining Rs. 1,30,000/- is to be paid at the time of quashing of the impugned proceedings. A draft of Rs. 1,30,000/- dated 01.05.2024 issued by SBI Bank, Nirankari Colony, Delhi bearing no. 319385 is being produced before this Court and the same has been handed over to Ms. Garima- opposite party no. 2, who is present in this Court and has been identified by his counsel, during the court of the day.
7. Paragraph nos. 1 to 16 of the settlement agreement dated 07.12.2024 is reproduced hereinafter:-
"1. That the Petitioner and Respondent have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent in accordance with law provides U/s 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. It is agreed between the parties that the Husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-(Rs. Five Lacs Thirty Thousand Only) as full and final settlement against istridhan and dowry, maintenance towards past, present and future qua this marriage in Three installments by way of Demand Draft/Pay Order.
3. It is further agreed between the parties that the Husband will pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs.One lac Only) to the wife and Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs.One lac Only) to wife in favour of minor child at the time of recording of the statement of the First Motion by the way of Demand Draft/Pay Order.
4. It is further agreed between the parties that the Husband will pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One lac Only) to the wife and Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs.One lac Only) to wife in favour of minor child to the wife at the time of recording of the statement of the Second Motion by the way of Demand Draft/Pay Order.
5. It is agreed between the parties that First Motion petition shall be filed on or before 24/12/2024 and the Second motion petition shall be filed soon after the completion of the period of the statutory period the order U/s 13 B (1) of HMA or as soon as early possible, as per law.
6. It is further agreed between the parties that the Husband shall pay Rs. 130,000/-(Rs. One Lac Thirty Thousand Only) by the way of Demand Draft/Pay Order to the wife at the time of recording of the statement in quashing of FIR No. 26/2021 under section 498A,323,504,506 Police Station Mahila Thana, Rakab Gunj, Agra, U.P (Cri case/613/2021) in Hon'ble High Court of Allahbad, U.P within One Month after second motion and wife shall cooperate and sign all the necessary affidavit and do the needful in quashing of the said FIR.
7. It is further agreed between the parties that the petitioner/Husband shall withdraw the Divorce case which is pending in the court of Sh. Murari Prasad singh L.d. Judge, Family Court, Cent. Distt. Tis Hazari court.
8. It is further agreed between the parties that the wife shall withdraw the Domestic Violence case and Maintenance which are pending in the before the concern courts at Agra, U.P after 1" Motion.
9. There is one male child born from this wedlock, namely Vansh 8 years old son. It is agreed between the parties that the custody of minor child will remain with mother and father will not have visitation right. And the respondent/wife will not make any claim on the behalf of minor child against the petitioner/husband in future.
10. It is agreed between the parties that if either of the parties commits breach or defaults of this mutually agreement settlement after the first motion, if wife hack out of the amount taken at the time of first motion shall be return to husband with 2% pm interest and if husband backs out the amount given at the time of first motion shall stands forfeited by the wife,
11. It has been agreed between both the parties that if any of the parties backs out from settlement agreement after the signing of the same penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs Only) shall be imposed upon the said party payable to the other party.
12. It is further agreed between the parties that they have understood the terms and conditions of the settlement.
13.It is further agreed between the parties that they shall remain bound with the aforesaid terms and conditions as mentioned in the settlement.
14. All the matters relating to this marriage either civil or criminal are settled and neither the parties nor their relatives shall make any claim against each other in future and will not file any case/complaint against each other and any time future in all court of law/police station etc.
15. The parties have agreed on each and every terms as recorded in the settlement agreement, after carefully reading over and fully understanding and appreciating the contents, scope and effect thereof, as also the consequences of the breach thereof, including payment of the fine/penalty as mentioned above.
16. The terms and conditions mentioned in the settlement have been understood in vernacular. The above said settlement is arrived at and between the parties out of their own free will, consent and without their being any undue pressure, coercion, influence, misrepresentation or mistaken (both law and fact) in any form whatsoever and the parties agreed that the settlement agreement has correctly recorded the said agreed terms and conditions."
8. As the parties have settled their dispute amicably and applicant no. 1 has already paid permanent alimony to opposite party no. 2. In such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 the 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 flavour 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 the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-
"15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"
11. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.
12. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicant, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.
13. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
14. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Saurabh