1. This petition under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C") has been filed by the petitioners to quash the summoning order dated 10.08.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow and charge sheet dated 18.02.2020 filed against the petitioners in Case Crime No. 427 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 504 & 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short "D.P. Act"), Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:-
(i) A First Information Report (in short "FIR") was registered at Case Crime No. 427 of 2019 on the basis of the complaint filed by Aisha Kapoor, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
(ii) After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners/accused persons. The Court concerned took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face the trial. The petitioners came before this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2333 of 2020, wherein this Court while disposing of the same, had directed as follows:
"Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
(iii) In compliance of the above order of the Court, petitioners and the private respondent appeared before the Court below and got verified the settlement arrived at between them. Now, parties have filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the compromise deed has been verified by the Court below in compliance of the order 21.10.2020 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2333 of 2020, so this petition may be allowed and the entire proceedings of the concerned case may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 acceded to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Learned A.G.A. did not raise any objection for the submissions so made.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
8. Compromise arrived at between the parties duly verified by the Court below is on record. Original compromise deed is also on record, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 10 to this petition.
9. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that parties have settled their dispute amicably, hence the entire proceedings may be quashed.
10. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under (relevant paragraph 61):-
"61. 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."
11. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise deed duly verified by the Court below is on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent no. 2 have also stated that now there remains no dispute left between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2.
12. In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears just to quash the proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 427 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
13. The petition is allowed accordingly.
14. The entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 427 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.