Allahabad High Court
Ankur @ Golu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23703 of 2021 Applicant :- Ankur @ Golu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Devi Prasad Pandey Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant and learned AGA for the State.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 14.11.2020 and cognizance order dated 17.12.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of case no.5741/2020 (S.T. No.01/2021), case crime no.0036/2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 307, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6th, Ghaziabad.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2/complainant and applicant no.2 is brother-in-law (dever) of opposite party no.2/complainant and that instant matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Now, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. In pursuance to the compromise between the parties, the marriage between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, passed under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act. In pursuance to previous order of this Court, the compromise between the parties, has already been verified by the trial court, the certified copy of which has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far the case under Section 307 IPC is concerned, there was no such injury on the body of opposite party no.2, so as to make out a case under Section 307 IPC. Similarly, regarding offence under Section 376/511 IPC, it was alleged by the opposite party no.2 that her brother-in-law (applicant no.2) did chherchhar with her but in fact it was a turn out of matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and that now the complainant does not want to pursue the said case and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as exhausting the proceedings of trial, would be a sheer wastage of time of the court.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.
So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its eralier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
i) that 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;
ii) 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) 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/delegate 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 paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
Keeping in view of aforesaid position of law, the instant matter it may be observed that the case pertains to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. There is no such injury to the opposite party no.2/complainant, so as to make out a case under Section 307 IPC. Similarly allegations regarding offence under Section 376/511 IPC are also quite vague. Essentially the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and both the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The opposite party no.2/complainant does not want to proceed with the said case. The dispute between the parties is private in nature and it would not have any serious impact on society, if parties compromise the matter. In view of these facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned proceedings.
In view of aforesaid, the impugned proceedings, including the charge-sheet and the impugned summoning order, of case no.5741/2020 (S.T. No.01/2021), case crime no.0036/2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511, 307, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022 Neeraj