SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aadeep Singhal And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 20 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 34518 of 2019

Applicant :- Aadeep Singhal And 2 Ors

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr

Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Mr. Vivek Chaudhry, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and the same is placed on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5564 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Railway Road, district Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Meerut.

Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case are that there is a matrimonial dispute between the applicants and opposite party No.2. The applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law of opposite party No. 2, Smt. Sakshi Singhal respectively. The marriage of applicant No. 1, Adeep Singhal was solemnized on 20.1.2014 with opposite party No. 2, but their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party No. 2 lodged first information report dated 23.8.2018 against the applicants, in which the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 19.5.2019, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 10.6.2019, and thereafter, the parties concerned have amicably settled their dispute on 10.7.2019 outside the court.

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28659 of 2019, whereby upon being informed about the factum of inter-se compromise in between the parties concerned, the concerned court below was directed to verify the factum of compromise between the parties concerned.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that pursuant to aforesaid order dated 30.7.2019, the parties concerned appeared before the trial court for getting their compromise verified. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Meerut on appearing the parties concerned before him verified the compromise in their presence and order dated 16.8.2019 has been passed verifying the said compromise in terms of order dated 23.7.2019 passed by this Court. The certified copies of the said order dated 16.8.2019 has been appended as annexure No. 8 to the application.”

It is also submitted 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.

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.

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, before proceedings further, it is apposite to give reference of judgment 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 is 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.”

On going through the judgment 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.

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.

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 applicants 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.

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.

As a fallout and consequence of above discussions, proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5564 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Railway Road, district Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Meerut against the applicants are hereby quashed.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

Order Date :- 20.9.2019

Sumaira

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation