HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 1027 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dev Alias Devendra And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Tripathi
Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Santosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, Brief Holder. Learned Brief Holder does not propose to file any counter affidavit.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 27.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0671 of 2018, under Sections 498A, Section307, Section363, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhua, District Hapur.
It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that impugned F.I.R is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.1 Dr. Dev @ Devendra (husband) and the respondent no.4 Smt. Sapna (wife) which eventually resulted in a settlement before the Mediation Centre of this court on 16.09.2019 wherein it was resolved that the parties concerned shall withdraw their civil/criminal cases filed against each other by taking appropriate steps before the court concerned. It is further submitted on the strength of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant that she has no objection in the event FIR lodged by her is quashed as the dispute has been amicably settled in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case SectionB.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of SectionGian 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 SectionPrevention 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 under an amicable settlement dated 16.09.2019 recorded before the Mediation Centre of this Court. In this view of the matter, to permit the petitioners to face prosecution in the face of compromise dated 16.09.2019 would be an abuse of the process of the court, as no evidence would be forthcoming to nail the petitioners.
The writ petition is allowed. The proceedings of Case Crime No. 0671 of 2018 under Sections 498A, Section307, Section363, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhua, District Hapur is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019