Allahabad High Court
Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 July, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1875
Author: Y.K.Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8512 of 2021 Applicant :- Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings related to Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit Bhati and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
3. On the previous occasion upon submissions of learned counsel for the parties that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute and that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have filed a compromise before the court below, the following order was passed.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned AGA for the State.
It is contended that both the parties have entered into compromise in the court below. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 stating that she does not want to contest the case against the applicants.
The parties are directed to appear before the court below along with compromise within a week and the court below shall submit report about verification of compromise to this Court by 15.4.2021.
List this case on 15.4.2021 showing the name of Mr Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Until the date fixed no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to impugned charge sheet dated 23.09.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of CJM Ghaziabad."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.3.2021, a report has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad 16.4.2021 in terms of which the factum of the compromise between the parties has been verified.
5. In B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others1, it has been held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, in case the parties have arrived at settlement agreement of their matrimonial disputes, and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Similarly in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I.2, compromise was permitted and criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise.
7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another3, it has been held thus :
"61...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 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 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."
8. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and unfettered. In B.S.Joshi (supra), the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings have been upheld, where the dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties, who are willing to settle their differences amicably.
9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana1 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another2, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab3 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab And Another4, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be set aside.
10. The proceedings arise from a matrimonial dispute, which is of a personal nature. The parties having decided to settle the matter amicably amongst themselves, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings. Matter deserves to be given quietus in the facts of the case.
11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings related to Case Crime No. 0721 of 2020 (State Vs. Rohit Bhati and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.
12. The application stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Pratima (Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)