Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8394 of 2019
Applicant :- Anees Ahmad And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aqueel Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradip Kumar Shukla
Hon’ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Pradip Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is preferred for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 53324 of 2018 (State Vs. Anees Ahmad and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 06.08.2018 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 27.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid case.
Vide order dated 14.02.2022, this Court had referred the matter before the concerned Court below for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has also been verified by the learned court below on 18.05.2022, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SAA to the supplementary affidavit. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that in view of the said compromise, the pending proceedings before the court below may be quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
“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 favour 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.”
There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the dispute was between the husband and wife neither involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end in terms of compromise entered into between the parties and the same too, has been verified by the learned Court below.
In this view of the matter, to permit the applicants to face the wrath of prosecution in the face of compromise would be an abuse of the process of the court, as no evidence would be forthcoming to nail the applicants. Thus the pending proceedings before the court below would be an abuse of the process of the court, which is liable to be quashed.
The application is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 53324 of 2018 (State Vs. Anees Ahmad and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar pending before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as well as the charge sheet dated 06.08.2018 and cognizance order dated 27.10.2018 passed in the aforesaid case, is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022