Allahabad High Court
Mainuddin And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 September, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179042 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37865 of 2022 Applicant :- Mainuddin And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Pratap Singh,Vishal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.K. Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 923 of 2014 (State vs. Mainuddin and others), arising out of the Case Crime No. 481 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.
4. The instant application is arising out of matrimonial dispute. Having being aggrieved with the behaviour of the present applicants (accused), the opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR levelling allegations of cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. During pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 01.12.2022, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise allegedly took place between the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 01.12.2022 is quoted herein below:-
"Sri Shrawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 923 of 2014 (State Vs. Mainuddin and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC, Ist, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.
Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
List after two months.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. "
5. In pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2022, learned Court below has submitted his verification report dated 23.12.2022. Having being dissatisfied with the compromise, this Court has passed the order dated 24.04.2023 to file fresh compromise, which is quoted herein below:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
In compliance to the Court' order dated 01.12.2022, though verified compromise deed has been transmitted by the trial court, but it appears that this compromise has been done between the opposite party no.2 and Mainuddin-applicant no.1.
Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file compromise deed on behalf of the other applicants also. Rest of the parties are directed to appear before the trial court and file their compromise deed within 15 days from today there, the trial court shall verify the compromise deed between the parties.
List on 15.06.2023.
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "
6. In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2023 both the parties have filed their compromise application dated 28.04.2023 and the same was verified by the verification order dated 03.05.2023. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. Court No.1, Ghaziabad has submitted verification report on 04.05.2023 with an observation that all the accused (applicants herein) have appeared and identified by their respective counsel. The opposite party No.2 has also been identified by her counsel. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise, and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned. Certified copy of compromise application, as appended with supplementary affidavit, reveals that on the reverse side of the first page of compromise learned trial Court has endorsed the compromise verification order dated 03.05.2023 in presence of the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the verification of the compromise verified by the Court concerned by order dated 03.05.2023, submits that the instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that 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 applicant 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.
8. 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."
9. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 04.5.2023, compromise verification order dated 03.5.2023 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.
12. 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.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023 A. Tripathi