Dr. Sanjeev Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024

2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. A joint compromise affidavit dated 24.01.2024 is on record. An objection by learned counsel for the State that a copy of the same is not served on him. A copy of the said compromise affidavit has been provided to him today in Court by learned counsel for the applicants.

4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ram Shanker and Vidya Devi with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 3585 of 2015 "Smt. Radha Suruavanshi Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others", under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, by which the Court below has taken cognizance on the application 3-A moved by the opposite party no.2.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 3585 of 2015 "Smt. Radha Suruavanshi Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others", under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, by which the Court below has taken cognizance on the application 3-A moved by the opposite party no.2.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3585 of 2015 "Smt. Radha Suruavanshi Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others", under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Mahila Thana, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Jhansi and during the pendency of the present application the further proceedings may be stayed in the interest of justice, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreperable loss.

And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise affidavit has been filed annexing with it, a compromise deed dated 24.01.2024 which is annexure 1 to the same. Learned counsel has placed the same before the Court and submitted that the parties have entered into a settlement and have settled all the disputes between them on the condition of a permanent alimony of Rs. 18 lakhs as full and final settlement. It is submitted that the other case between the parties being Case Crime no. 75 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi was challenged before this Court in Crl. Misc. Application U/s 482 CrP.C. No. 21461 of 2017 (Dr. Sanjeev and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) in which the parties appeared before this Court and had verified the said compromise which has also been mentioned in the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by which the said petition has been allowed, copy of the order has been placed before the Court which reads as under:

"Through this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the applicants for quashing of Charge Sheet No. 16/2016 dated 10.04.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 23.07.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2680 of 2016; titled State of U.P. vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi and the proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the joint compromise affidavit) entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that as a result of matrimonial dispute between applicants and opposite party no. 2, litigation started and during pendency of the litigation, the parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute mutually by the compromise deed dated 24.01.2024 and the settlement was also reduced in writing. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise deed dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure No. 1 to the joint compromise affidavit) and submitted that the parties have also agreed to consent for quashing of subject criminal cases registered at the instance of opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel prays that in view of this compromise between the parties, the impugned Charge Sheet No. 16/2016 dated 10.04.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 23.07.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2680 of 2016; titled State of U.P. vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed in the interest of justice.

During the course of hearing, the statements of the parties, i.e. the applicant no.1 and opposite party no. 2, who are present in Court have been recorded, wherein it is stated by both of them that indeed they have resolved their dispute and have no objection, if, this criminal case is quashed. Parties have also produced photocopies of their Aadhar Cards, who are also identified by their counsel. Parties have categorically stated that the compromise is entered into voluntarily by them without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and this Court is also satisfied in respect of the genuineness of the compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed joint compromise affidavit dated 24.01.2024 and supplementary affidavit dated 01.03.2024, which are taken on record.

Learned counsel submits that according to the terms and conditions of the compromise, a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 in two equal installments of Rs. 9,00,000/- each and the parties have also decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent.

Learned counsel for applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 01.03.2024 to place on record the photostat copy of the demand draft dated 23.2.2024 bearing No. 000366 amounting to Rs.9 lacs in favour of the opposite party no.2 drawn at Bank of India and the remaining amount shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 at the stage of dissolution of marriage.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that according to the compromise deed, a sum of Rs.18 lacs is to be paid to the opposite party no.2 towards full and final settlement, and against this, a sum of Rs.9 lacs has been received in the Court through demand draft dated 23.2.2024. Learned counsel opposite party no.2 further states that parties have also decided to live separately and necessary steps are been taken for dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent in the pending first appeal no. 25 of 2021, titled Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Radha Chhipa and another, wherein the parties are moving the requisite application.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed the powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the relevant portion reads as under :-

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 predominatingly 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."

Upon analysing the above background, nature of the offences as well as the common stand of the parties relating to compromise whereby they have burried the hatchet, this Court finds that the parties have settled the dispute and decided to live in peace, therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring an end to the above prosecution, as no meaningful purpose would be served, if, the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue.

Resultantly, present petition succeeds and Charge Sheet No. 16/2016 dated 10.04.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 23.07.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 2680 of 2016; titled State of U.P. vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed.

The application is allowed.

6. It is further submitted that the proceedings of Case No. 575 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Radha Suryavanshi Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and 2 others), P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi has also been quashed vide order dated 13.03.2024 in terms of the said compromise by another Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Applicatin U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23111 of 2018 (Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another), copy of the said order has been placed before this Court which reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No.575 of 2015, Smt. Radha Suryavanshi Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi.

3. A joint compromise affidavit has been filed by the applicant and opposite party no.2 stating that the matter has been settled.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the compromise, the impugned order dated 10.12.2015 may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 has received Rs.9 lacs as part payment of the compromise amount out of total amount of Rs.18 lacs and remaining amount would be paid at the time of divorce. He has no objection in case the present proceedings are quashed in view of the joint compromise affidavit dated 24.1.2024.

6. In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and the fact that matter has been mutually settled between the parties in view of the joint compromise affidavit dated 24.1.2024, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

7. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicant-Dr. Sanjeev Kumar is hereby quashed.

8. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed."

7. It is submitted that the said compromise has been verified and accepted by the parties in 482 petition before this Court. It is submitted that the petition be thus allowed and the proceedings as prayed for be qushed.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the State has also been heard who also does not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

9. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

10. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings, charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant(s).

11. The present application is allowed.

12. The entire proceeding as well as the order dated 10.12.2015 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants depositing Rs.10,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district.

Order Date :- 28.5.2024 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court