Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar Shukla And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 October, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190014 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18448 of 2020 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Shukla And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. An affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of applicant no.1 (husband), which is taken on record.
2. None is present for the opposite party no.2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of impugned judgement and order dated 16.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.475 of 2015 (Ravi Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of impugned summoning order dated 21.08.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.328 of 2015 (Smt. Lakshmi Shukla Vs. Ravi Kumar Shukla and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 313, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar as well as impugned summoning order dated 21.08.2015, pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-2, Kanpur Nagar.
5. Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 21.08.2015, has issued process against the present applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 313, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. The revisional court, on revision being filed, has affirmed the summoning order dated 21.08.2015, vide its order dated 16.01.2020. Having been aggrieved, instant application has been filed on behalf of accused against both the aforesaid orders.
6. During pendency of the proceedings, this Court, having considered the matter arising out of matrimonial discord, has referred the matter before the Mediation Centre vide order dated 12.01.2021. In pursuance of the order dated 12.01.2021, parties have entered into settlement agreement, and, accordingly, mediation report has been submitted mentioning the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 19.05.2022, which is quoted herein below :
"ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 19.05.2022, between Sri Ravi Kumar Shukla (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Lakshmi (O.P. No. 2-Wife).
WHEREAS
1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto Application Uls 482 No. 18448 of 2020 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court.
2. The matter was referred to mediation / conciliation vide order dated 12.01.2021 passed by bench of Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J.
3. The parties agreed that Mr. J.N. Mishra and Ms. RM. Giri, Advocates would act as their Conciliator/Mediator, in the Mediation Case No. 0223/2022.
4. Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation on 24-03- 2022, 07-04-2022, 05-05-2022 and 19-05-2022 the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above-mentioned disputes and differences."
5. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of there own free will arrived at the settlement agreement in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator.
6. The marriage of Sri Ravi Kumar Shukla (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Lakshmi (O.P. No. 2- Wife) was solemnized on 29.11.2012. Out of aforesaid wedlock, parties have no issue. The parties have been living separately since last eight years.
7. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediators/Conciliators.
8. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 05.05.2022. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
(a) That the parties have mutually decided to take divorce and in this regard they have filed a divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar which is registered as Matrimonial Case No. 1294 of 2022. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
(b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the applicant-husband shall pay a permanent alimony Including Stridhan of Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) to the wife by way of demand draft.
(c) That on 05.05.2022 the applicant-husband has produced a demand draft bearing no. 003563 both dated 30.04.2022 for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of wife namely Laxmi Dixit and the same has been handed over today i.e. 19.05.2022 to the wife and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
(d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount l.e. Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Thousand only) shall be paid by Sri Ravi Kumar Shukla (Applicant No. 1-Husband) to Smt. Lakshmi (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment in Matrimonial Case No. 1294 of 2022 pending in Family Court, Kanpur Nagar by way of demand draft.
(e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed against each other shall be withdrawn prior to final decree in aforesaid divorce petition.
(f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.
(g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this serthement otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse.
9.-By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that the Application U/s 482 No. 18448 of 2020 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."
7. As per settlement dated 19.05.2022, both the parties agreed upon to be separated on the final alimony to the tune of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Thousand) and move a divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. At the time of the settlement dated 19.05.2022, a bank draft of Rs.2,00,000/- has been handed over to the opposite party no.2 which is already mentioned in the settlement.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed an affidavit of applicant no.1 (husband) annexing certified copy of the compromise application filed before the trial court. Perusal of the compromise application dated 19.04.2023 reveals that the opposite party no.2 has received the remaining amount of Rs.2,80,000/- in pursuance of the agreement arrived at between the parties. At page no.9 of the affidavit, both the parties have recorded their statements in presence of their counsels and their signature have been identified by their respective counsels.
9. Perusal of the statement made by Lakshmi (opposite party no.2) reveals that she has received remaining Rs.2,80,000/- at the time of disposal of the divorce petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and, accordingly, she has received the entire final alimony amounting Rs.4,80,000/- in pursuance of the agreement settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court. Applicant has filed the affidavit dated 22.03.2023 annexing the certified copy of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed in proceeding under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, copy of the application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and copy of bank draft bearing Bank Draft No.000545 dated 09.11.2022 amounting Rs.2,80,000/-. At the bottom of page no.9 of the affidavit filed today, learned Magistrate has acknowledged the agreement took place between the parties and observed that terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties in presence of their counsels.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the settlement agreement dated 19.05.2022 took place between the parties before the Mediation Centre of this Court and the compliance of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has already taken the final alimony amounting Rs.4,80,000/- in pursuance of the settlement agreement dated 19.05.2022 and nothing remains to be complied with. In the light of the settlement agreement dated 19.05.2022, both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-
(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.
(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
11. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-
"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar 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."
12. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of settlement agreement took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
13. Having considered the settlement agreement dated 19.05.2022, compromise application dated 19.04.2023 and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
14. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
15. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Jitendra