Allahabad High Court
Vidyadhar Singh And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 23 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2435
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41730 of 2018 Applicant :- Vidyadhar Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Rai,Manoj Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.1172 of 2018 (Nisha Singh vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others), under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
3. It is germane to give actual facts regarding case. On 16.06.2017 opposite party No.2 filed complaint against the applicants and three other persons alleging therein that before marriage applicants came to parental house for solemnizing matrimonial ceremonies and that time demanded Rs.2 lacs dowry from her father and threatened them that if they did not fulfil the demand then applicant No.1 will not marriage her, thereafter some relatives intervened then applicant ready for marriage on condition that after marriage they would give Rs.2 lacs thereafter marriage was solemnize on 17.02.2016 and complainant went to her in-laws house, when father of complainant could not fulfil the demand of Rs.2 lacs they started torture and cruelty against her. Complainant told about cruelty of applicant to her father, complainant's father came and convinced them but they did not agree and continued threatening and tortured the complainant. At last on 27.06.2016 they beaten and threatened her and thrown her out of house. Complainant filed complaint against the applicant and Magistrate after taking statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act on 20.09.2018. Applicant by way of aforesaid 482 Application challenged the complaint case as well as summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on the ground that entire allegations of case are baseless, false and concocted and no occurrence was taken place. No injury caused to opposite party No.2 but due to false implication and undue harassment, the opposite party No.2 taken false and fabricated stand in order to harass and humiliate the applicant. He further submitted that opposite party No.2 is a married lady and lived in a modern style and she dislike the living style of the applicants whereas the applicant No.1 always wants to keep opposite party No.2 with him and lead a happy marriage life with her with full honour and dignity but due to aggressive and non co-operative attitude of opposite party no.2, the Applicant No.1 filed Case No.274 of 2017 against opposite party No.2 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi which was decreed in favour of applicant No.1 on 15.09.2017. He further submitted that cause of action of the present case arose in District Ranchi, Jharkhand and in view of Hon'ble Apex Court law laid down in case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 (SC). The aforesaid complaint case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and further impugned order as well as proceedings are arbitrary and mala fide and not supported by documentary evidence.
4. This Court on 20.11.2018 passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Miss. Poonam Singh Sengar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint Case No. 1172/2018, under sections 323, 506, 498A IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (Nisha Singh Vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others) as well as the impugned summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no. 1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
So far as the husband-applicant no. 1 namely, Vidyadhar Singh is concerned following orders is being passed:-
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.
So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the following orders is being passed:-
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case."
5. Thereafter short counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2 alleging therein after mutual consent both applicant No.1 (husband) and opposite party No.2 (wife) settled their disputes including the criminal case registered as Case Crime No.1172 of 2018 filed under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the parties came to settlement and prepared joint compromise petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 29.01.2019 filed in the Family Court, Sonbhadra with prayer to divorce decree be granted in terms of compromise, the same has been filed with the short counter affidavit. He further submitted that opposite party No.2 has expressed willingness to respect and abide by the terms and conditions. He prays for quashing of proceedings of Complaint Case No.1172 of 2018, under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act (Nisha Singh Vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others).
6. This Court by order dated 21.09.2020 has passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for both sides are present.
It is being argued that parties have entered in compromise.
Let a compromise be filed before trial Court, where, it shall be verified and after its due verification, the same along with order of trial Court be filed by way of supplementary affidavit.
List before the appropriate Bench on 20.10.2020.
Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date."
7. C.J.M., Sonebhadra in compliance of order dated 21.09.2020 submitted a report that which is on record. Appellant and his wife, opposite party No.2 (Nisha Singh) filed compromise application with affidavit and they were verified by their counsels, namely, Sri Ravi Prakash Tripathi and Sri T. P. Gupta.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no need to proceedings be further go on in terms of the above points.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant.
10. After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, before proceedings further, it is apposite to give reference of some judgments of the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the guideline for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and amicable settlement of matrimonial cases between the parties concerned, which are as follows:-
(i) The Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 gave its approving nod to the existence and exercise of High Court's power to quash the criminal proceedings on compromise in suitable matrimonial cases. Paragraph nos. 14 and 15 of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below:-
"14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
(ii) The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, considering previous judgments and section 320 Cr.P.C. has laid down guideline for exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in case of settlement of dispute between the parties concerned. Paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"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."
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment while deciding Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbhatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another has considered the decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. R Vasanthi Stanley, the Court rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following the command of her husband" and had signed certain documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this Court held that:
"14... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score.
15....... A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on the system ........"
12. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
(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 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 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 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;
13. On going through the judgments referred herein above makes it very clear that even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences, their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them in a criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial disputes, which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations, which do not have grave and deleterious social fall-outs. The Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power in appropriate case and terminate the pending proceedings in order to secure ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon the depose in the Court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the Court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost.
14. The object of criminal law is primarily to visit the offender with certain consequences. He may be made to suffer punishment or by paying compensation to the victim, but the law at the same time also provides that it may not be necessary in every criminal offence to mete out punishment, particularly, if the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet. If they want to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement.
15. After compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicant to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guideline laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In view of above interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.
17. As a fallout and consequence of above discussions, Complaint Case No.1172 of 2018 (Nisha Singh vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others), under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.09.2018 against the applicants are hereby quashed.
18. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.
Order Date :- 23.11.2020 Nitin Verma