Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 2 February, 2023
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9044 of 2022 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla,Amit Shukla,Supriya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prerna Verma,Ravindra Nath Pandey Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Ravindra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2 and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the state.
Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a joint affidavit of applicant no.1 and opposite party No.2 today in Court. The same is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have filed a Suit under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on 01.02.2023. This fact has been stated in paragraph 3 of the joint affidavit.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 30.07.2021 passed by Special Additional Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow in Case No.29890/2021, State vs. Pawan Kumar Pandey and others, arising out of Case Crime No.279/2019, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
On 18.1.2023 this court passed the following order:
"Counter Affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Ravindra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2 and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA for the state.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1-Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar is present in person before this Court today. He has been identified by his counsel Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also submits that opposite party no. 2 Seema Pandey is present in person before this Court today. She has been identified by her counsel Shri Shri Ravindra Nath Pandey.
Applicant No.-1 Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar submits that he wants to settle the dispute permanently and is ready to pay one time alimony to his wife Seema Pandey, opposite party no.-2 to the tune of Rs 7,50,000/-, in which to show his bonafide he will pay a draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the next date fixed before this Court and remaining amount of Rs 5,50,000/- will be paid at the time of passing of decree under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.
Both the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 assured this Court that they will file a petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce in accordance with law before court below within 15 days from today so that the matter may be decided expeditiously. It was also assured by them that they will file joint affidavit before this Court on the next date fixed regarding terms and conditions to settle their dispute.
Learned AGA submits that he has no objection if the parties are entering into compromise and a petition is filed under section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act before court below and the matter is settled after taking one time alimony by opposite party no.-2, Smt. Seema Pandey wife of applicant no.-1 Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar.
List this case on 02-02-2023 at 02:30 P.M. before this Court for further orders. On the said date, the joint affidavit be filed by the parties before this Court with terms and conditions. It is also directed that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was deposited by the applicant no.1 before Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on 21-12-2022 in compliance of this Court's order dated 06-12-2022, shall be paid to opposite party no.-2 Seema Pandey by the Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow within 10 days from today.
Interim order granted earlier by this Court is extended till the next date of listing. "
In compliance of order dated 18.01.2023 the applicant no.-1 Pawan Kumar Pandey @ Pawan Kumar and opposite party no.-2 Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari are present before this Court in person and are identified by their respective counsels.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of order dated 18.01.2023 passed by this Court, a joint affidavit has been filed, in which in paragraph No.4 it has been stated that a Demand Draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been paid to opposite party No.2, namely, Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari bearing Draft No. 500946 dated 30.01.2023 (ICICI Bank Bahraich). The said Draft is being handed over to Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari, opposite party No.2 before this Court, after keeping the photo stat copy of the same on record. It has also been mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the joint affidavit that the applicant No.1 had to pay Rs. 7,50,000/- as one time alimony to the opposite party No.2 and he has already given Rs.2,00,000/- by the aforesaid Demand Draft and he will pay the rest of the amount i.e. 5,50,000/- at the time of passing of decree in the proceedings filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Learned counsel for the parties has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.
(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "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.
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 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;
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 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;
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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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."
The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The opposite party No.2, Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari submits that she has received the aforesaid Demand Draft and the amount has been credited in her account. The opposite party No.2 also states that the she is not interested to pursue this matter any further and she has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed. She also assured the Court that all the dispute whether any criminal or civil has been settled. She will not initiated any action against the applicant No.1 in future.
Sri Diwaker Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that since the entire dispute has been settled amicably before this Court no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the opposite party No.2-Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari the dispute has been settled as Seema Pandey @ Seema Tiwari has received Draft No. 500946 dated 30.01.2023 (ICICI Bank Bahraich) of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the amount has been credited in her account now she is not interested to pursue this matter any further and she has no objection if the proceedings of this case be quashed, thus the entire dispute has been settled, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and in view of the statement made by the applicants as well as opposite party no.2 and the observation made above, the entire proceedings of Case No.29890/2021, State vs. Pawan Kumar Pandey and others, arising out of Case Crime No.279/2019, Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Additional Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. (A.P.) Lucknow is hereby quashed.
The court below i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow may decide the case filed by the applicant No. 1 and opposite party No.2 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act expeditiously exempting the cooling period of six months on merits.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 02.02.2023 Arvind