Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13555 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34644 of 2024 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Mr. Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application has been filed with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application of the applicants and be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.273/2024 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Others), under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, in Case Crime No.189/2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi as well as impugned charge sheet dated 22.05.2024, the summoning order as well as cognizance taken on 23.07.2024 and other process issue against them.
It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.273/2024 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar And Others), under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, in Case Crime No.189/2024, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi as well as pleased to stay the operation and execution of the impugned charge sheet dated 22.05.2024, the summoning order as well as cognizance taken on 23.07.2024 and other process issue against them."
3. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the parties were directed to appear before this Court, therefore, on 06.01.2025, the following order was passed:-
"In compliance of order dated 10.12.2024, applicant no.1-Pradeep Kumar (husband) and opposite party no.2-Tanvi (wife) are present before this Court and have been identified by their respective counsel. Father of Tanvi, namely, Ram Babu Kesharwani is also present before this Court.
The matter was taken taken in open Court in presence of Mr. Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
After hearing the applicant no.1-Pradeep Kumar (husband) and opposite party no.2-Tanvi (wife) as well as Ram Babu Kesharwani (father of opposite party no.2), the court on their willingness, directs that Pradeep Kumar will take his wife from here itself and they will go to parents place of Tanvi at Village Bisara, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi. Pradeep Kumar and Tanvi will take their four year old son from the Village Bisara, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi and will move for Village Kanaili, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi, where the applicant Pradeep Kumar is residing along-with his mother. As per the assurance given by father of Tanvi, he will do proper vidai of his daughter and will send Tanvi along-with four year old child with her husband Pradeep Kumar. The applicant- Pradeep Kumar has also assured this Court that he and his mother will not misbehave with Tanvi and will take proper care of her. Tanvi has also stated that she will cooperate with her husband and will take care of his mother also.
In such circumstances, this Court directs to Pradeep Kumar to take Tanvi to her parents place first.
The Station House Officer, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi will ensure that no untoward incident takes place when the applicant goes along-with his wife to her parents place. Pradeep Kumar after reaching to Village Kanaili, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi will inform at Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi that he has brought his wife along-with her son from the parents place. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi will make a visit after a week from today to ensure that the applicant-Pradeep Kumar and opposite party no.2-Tanvi are staying happily. Needless to say, in case of any issue between the parties, the parties are free to inform the concerned Station House Officer who will take proper action for safety of opposite party no.2.
This order has been passed in the presence of Mr. Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Sing Chauhan, learned AGA-1 as well as Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State and also has been explained to Pradeep Kumar, Tanvi and Ram Babu Kesharwani.
The parties will present before this Court on 27.01.2025 to share the experience to the Court.
The Government Advocate and Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into the proper compliance of this order and inform the concerned Station House Officers about this order.
Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-1 shall inform the Government Advocate about this order who shall telephonically inform the same to the Station House Officer, Police Stations Kokhraj, District Kaushambi as well as Station House Officer, Police Stations Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi.
Put up, as fresh, on 27.01.2025."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2025, applicant Pradeep Kumar and opposite party no.2 Tanvi are present before this Court today along with their child to share their experience, who have been identified and signatures have also been attested by their counsels Mr. Deepak Kumar Verma and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the parties.
5. On query being raised, Tanvi has stated before this Court that she is staying happily with her husband and mother-in-law. She has no grudge against anyone husband and mother-in-law. She also states that she does not want to proceed with the case. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and deposed before this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court in the case of Mafat Lal and another vs. State of Rajasthan report on 2022 Law Suit(SC) 463 and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gufran Shaikh @ Gani Munawwar vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 28.07.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.10258 of 2021.
7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
8. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
"57. 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 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, 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."
9. The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
11. In the present case, no doubt offence under some relevant sections are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases (supra), power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
12. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.
13. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The present case is also a case where two societal interests are in clash. To punish the offenders for a crime, involved in present case, is in the interest of society, but, at the same time, husband is taking care of his wife and in case, husband is convicted and sentenced for societal interest, then, wife will be in great trouble and their future would be ruined. It is also in the interest of society to settle and resettle the family for their welfare.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that the Tanvi wife of applicant no.1, herself, has stated before this Court that she is staying happily with her husband and mother-in-law and has no grudge against them. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
15. Accordingly, in view of the statement given by Tanvi opposite party no.2, the proceedings of charge sheet dated 22.05.2024 as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2024 and Criminal Case No.273/2024 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.189 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sarai Akil, District-Kaushambi, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi, are hereby quashed.
16. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
18. Needless to say that in case of any difficulty it is open to the parties to move an application before this Court.
Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Rahul.