Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 26 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19906 of 2020 Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
Learned counsel for applicants has placed before Court certified copy of the judgment passed in Case No.582 of 2020, (Smt. Pooja Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh), under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, which is taken on record.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet No.272 of 2015 dated 09.07.2015 submitted in Case Crime No.1054 of 2014, under Sections- 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 420, 467, 468, 406, 469, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, Cognizance Taking Order dated 06.12.2016 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar upon aforesaid charge-sheet, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No.290270 of 2016, (State Vs. Jagdish and Others) arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
It transpires from record that an F.I.R. dated 20.08.2014 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh, which was registered as Case Crime No.1054 of 2014, under Sections- 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 420, 467, 468, 406, 469, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Mahendra Singh (husband), Jagdish Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Rajrani Singh (mother-in-law), Shashank Singh (devar) of opposite party-2 and Avinash Sharma (friend of applicant-1) have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigation Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 09.07.2015 whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 147, 452, 328, 504, 427, 406, 420 I.P.C.
Upon submission of above-noted charge-sheet, coginzance was taken upon same by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 06.12.2016. Accordingly, Criminal Case No.290270 of 2016, (State Vs. Jagdish and Others) under Sections- 147, 452, 328, 504, 427, 406, 420 I.P.C.,Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar came to be registered. Subsequently, applicants have been summoned in above-mentioned criminal case.
Record shows that prior to aforesaid criminal proceedings, applicant-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh filed Case No.1470 of 2014, "Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Pooja Singh", under Section- 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.
During pendency of afore-mentioned criminal case before court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, especially applicant-1, Mahendra Singh and opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh, a compromise deed dated 12.03.2020 was drawn. Photocopy of same is on record at page- 32 of the paper book.
Subsequently, first informant/opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh filed Suit No.582 of 2020, "Smt. Pooja Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh" under Section- 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.
In the light of above, applicant-1, Mahendra Pratap Singh and opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh filed a joint application dated 12.03.2020 in Suit No.1470 of 2014, "Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Pooja Singh", whereby it was prayed that aforesaid suit be decided in terms of compromise.
Since applicant-1, Mahendra Pratap Singh and opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh are husband and wife and agreed to terminate their marital relationship and further to end all criminal litigation between parties as agreed under the compromise deed dated 12.03.2020, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Present application came up for admission on 08.01.2021 and this Court passed following order:-
"Heard Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned Counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. None is present for opposite party No.2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.290270/2016(State vs. Jagdish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1054/2014 under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of A.C.M.M., District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and compromise deed has been executed between them, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 3 to this application.
The applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.
Put up as fresh on 15.2.2021 before appropriate Court, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in Criminal Case No.290270/2016(State vs. Jagdish and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1054/2014 under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
This case shall not be treated as tied up/part heard to this Bench. "
In compliance of above order dated 08.01.2021, opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh along with applicants filed an application dated 12.02.2021 in Case No.290270 of 2016, (State Vs. Jagdish and Others) praying therein that in view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit above-mentioned case be decided in terms of compromise.
Court below vide order dated 12.02.2021 verified the compromise so entered between the parties. Accordingly, a report dated 23.02.2021 was sent to this Court by court below.
Mr. S.D. Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. He further contends that applicant-1 and opposite party-2 are husband and wife. On the basis of settlement arrived at between parties, a compromise deed dated 12.03.2020 was drawn. According to the terms of compromise, parties were under an obligation to withdraw criminal cases. Consequently, present application was filed before this Court as some of the charges alleged against applicants are non-compoundable. He further contends that Divorce Suit under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, that is, Suit No.582 of 2020, "Smt. Pooja Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh" has already been decreed vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2021. As such, marital relationship between applicant-1 and opposite party-2 has now come to an end. He therefore, submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of now relegating the parties to court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since applicant-1 and opposite party-2 have agreed to terminate their marital relationship and in pursuance thereof the suit under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by first informant/opposite party-2 having been decreed, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case. He further contends that compromise entered between the parties has to be treated as an effective compromise to bring all disputes to an end.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
15. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
16. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
17. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. In Dimpey Gujral (supra), it was held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity,or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as same fall in the category of crime against society. It was however observed that court should bear in mind that if because of compromise between the parties, 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 accused by not quashing the criminal proceedings, then in that eventuality High Court should quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) has observed 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. 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.
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 judgement, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised 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 recognizes 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 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties, this Court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. Pursuant to the compromise entered into by applicant-1 and opposite party-2, it was agreed to terminate the marital relationship between them. Consequently, suit under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by opposite party-2, Smt. Pooja Singh which was registered as Suit No.582 of 2020, "Smt. Pooja Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh" and has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2021. As such, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of applicants are now remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to 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.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.290270 of 2016, (State Vs. Jagdish and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1054 of 2014, under Sections- 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 420, 467, 468, 406, 469, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Saif