Allahabad High Court
Parveen Kumar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 June, 2020
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 43 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11344 of 2020 Applicant :- Parveen Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
3. On the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 205/9 of 2015 (Aruna Rani Vs.Parveen Kumar & others), under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of some disputes, opposite party no.2 had filed the Complaint Case in which applicants were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 25.06.2015. Thereafter, applicants moved an Application No. 25403 of 2017 under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and obtained bail from the trial court on the basis of order dated 16.08.2017 passed on the application by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Now the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Opposite party no.2 is living with the applicants, therefore, this application has been moved for quashing the complaint. In support of the application opposite party no.2, Smt. Aruna Rani herself has filed affidavit and in para 9 of the affidavit it has been specifically stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and she is living in her matrimonial house without any complaint. Since parties have settled their dispute, therefore, learned counsel relying upon the cases of B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryaya, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), (2008) 9 SCC 677, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Narinder Singh And Others vs. State of Punjab And Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, prays that the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case no.205/9 of 2015 may be quashed.
5. Learned A.G.A. fairly submits that since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint case will be nothing but only abuse of process of the court.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite -party no.2 submits that on accruing some disputes between the parties the opposite party no.2 had filed the complaint but the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties and now she is living happily with the applicants, therefore, she does not want to prosecute the case against the applicants and wants that the matter may be decided on the basis of compromise.
7. A perusal of the record, would show that at the instance of opposite party no. 2 the complaint case was filed that on 04.08.2006 opposite party no.2 married Praveen Kumar, applicant no.1. After marriage the applicants started demanding Swift D-zire Car in additional demand of dowry and on showing inability by the opposite party no.2 they started harassing her, physically and mentally. On 01.03.2014 applicants by abusing kicked her out from the house. Thereafter, on 10.05.2015 at about 11.00 hour of the day, applicants came to her parental house and again they abused and beat her by 'Lathi Danda'. In the complaint applicants were summoned by the Court below for trial under section 498A, 323, 504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act vide its order dated 25.06.2015.
8. According to the applicants, now the matter has been settled between the parties and opposite party no. 2 is living in her matrimonial house happily without any complaint. Along with the application an affidavit has been filed of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Aruna Rani. Apart from above affidavit, a short counter affidavit also has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Aruna Rani and in Para 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred that she does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicants and wants to decide the present case on the basis of compromise.
9. In view of the affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, Aruna Rani, there is no reason to doubt about the settlement between the parties and living of opposite party no. 2 happily without any compliant in her matrimonial house along with the applicants.
10. Offence under section 498A IPC is non-compoundable. Therefore, the considerable question in the instant case is whether the complaint can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
11. To decide the question in the instant case it will be appropriate to refer the following cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in which ambit and power of High Court to quash the FIR, complaint or proceeding of criminal case has been considered.
12. In case of B.S. Joshi (supra), appellant no.4 was the husband of respondent no.2. Their marriage took place on 21.07.1999 and they were living separately since 15.07.2000. Appellant nos.1 to 3 were father, mother and younger brother of appellant no.4. FIR No.8 of 2002 was registered under section 498A and 406 IPC at Police Station, Central Faridabad at the instance of the wife on 02.01.2002. Thereafter she had filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. According to the affidavit, her disputes with the appellants were finally settled and she and appellant no.4 had agreed for mutual divorce.
13. Appellants filed petition before the High Court for quashing of FIR . High Court dismissed the petition in view of the offences under section 498A and 406 IPC are not compoundable and inherent power under section 482 IPC of the Code cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory provision of section 320 of the Code.
14. The question for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was regarding the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint. It was considered that when such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approached the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the FIR or complaint filed by wife under sections 498A and 406 IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are non-compoundable under section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the finding of its own Court in State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and Ors.,MANU/SC/0143/1977: 1977 CriLJ 1125 that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so required. It was also observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice and the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered that what would happen to trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. She has filed an affidavit that FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be, either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorced on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.
17. On over all considerations Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court in exercise of its inherent power 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.
18. In Nikhil Merchant (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"29. Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC, the same has been made compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with the leave of the court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S.Joshi (supra) case becomes relevant."
19. In Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. 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, the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
20. In Yogendra Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
21. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle for quashing of cases that power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. Those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
22. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases it is well settled that even the offences which are non- compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. but while exercising such power the High Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. FIR, complaint or the criminal case having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour, arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and entire dispute has been resolved between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak in such case the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such prosecution would be wastage of time and energy as well as it will unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace, and continuation of criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case and the High Court is convinced that quashing of such proceeding on account of compromise would bring peace and would secure ends of justice it should not hesitate to quash them.
23. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is unpropitious chance of conviction in the instant case. In such a situation it will be ineffective prosecution and continuing the criminal proceeding before the court below will be nothing but a dawdle and an otiose exercise only. Since parties have decided to live happily together and if the criminal proceeding is not quashed then it will unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace between the parties, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to secure the ends of justice between the parties it is expedient and a fit case to quash the proceeding of the complaint case by invoking the power provided under section 482 Cr.P.C..
24. Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 205/9 of 2015 (Aruna Rani Vs. Parveen Kumar & others), under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli is hereby quashed.
25. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
26. Registry is directed to inform the trial court for compliance of order.
Order Date:-19.6.2020 MAA/-