HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 29356 of 2019

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar And 2 Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu,Sanjay Kumar Sahu

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Mr. M.N. Shukla, learned Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record.

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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 14.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1312 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2016, under Sectionsections 498-A, Section323, Section504 and Section506 IPC and Sectionsection 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad.

Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts of the case, in brief, are that applicant No. 1 is husband, applicant No. 2 is father-in-law and applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law of opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Sonam. The marriage of applicant No. 1 was solemnized with opposite party No. 2 on 02.05.2014 and one male child was born from of the said wed-lock, but due to temperamental differences in attitude, they started living separately and their matrimonial life was not successful and as a result thereof, opposite party No.2 lodged first information report dated 07.05.2016 under Sectionsections 498-A, Section323, Section504 and Section506 IPC and Sectionsection 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the applicants and other co-accused persons registered as Case Crime No. 179 of 2016, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad making various allegations of harassment and torture against accused persons adopting different mods-operandi on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry etc. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge sheet dated 14.07.2016, on which the court concerned took cognizance on 19.08.2016. Thereafter, the parties concerned entered into a compromise and a settlement took place between them. Pursuant to the said settlement, applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 presented a petition under Sectionsection 13-B (1) of SectionHindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage through the divorce decree by mutual consent. The divorce petition has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted by the Judge, Family Court, North-East District K.K.D. Courts, Delhi vide order dated 04.05.2019, copy of which has been appended as annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per the terms and conditions of the settlement, a total of amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (rupees seven lac) was to be paid by the applicants to opposite party No. 2, out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) has already been paid to opposite party No. 2. So far as payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has produced original Draft No. 589317 dated 05.07.2019 drawn on Corporation Bank in favour of Sonam Rani (opposite party No. 2/wife of applicant No. 1). The said draft has been handed over to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 in presence of opposite party No. 2, who is present today before the Court. Opposite party No. 2, upon receiving the said draft, submitted that now all the disputes between them has come to an end and she has no grievance, in case impugned charge sheet and further proceedings of criminal case against the applicants are quashed.

The Apex Court recently in a judgment dated 5.3.2019 rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, considering previous judgments and Sectionsection 320 Cr.P.C. has laid down guideline for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in case of settlement of dispute between the accused and complainant. The para 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 herein-above, 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 SectionPrevention 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 SectionArms 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 SectionArms 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 herein-above;

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.”

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 victim wants to bury the hatchet. If the offender and victim want to move on in a matrimonial cases, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as on date in the light of dictum and guideline laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I think the interests 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.

On making settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, 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 a fallout and consequence of above discussions, the impugned charge sheet dated 14.07.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1312 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2016, under Sectionsections 498-A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC and Sectionsection 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad 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 :- 19.8.2019

Sazia