Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20267 of 2019 Applicant :- Amrit Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nikhil Srivastava,Hari Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Daya Shanker Pandey,Shishir Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.2844 of 2018, (State Vs. Amrit Goyal), under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 124/2017, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of incidents alleged to have been occurred from 01.05.2024 to 10.08.2017, a delayed F.I.R. dated 10.08.2017 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Saumya Goyal, which was registered as Case Crime No. 124/2017, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely, Amrit Goyal, Lallan Kumar Agrawal, Mamta Agrawal, Parag Goyal, have been nominated as named accused.
5. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of statement of first informant/opposite party-2 and other witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as other material collected during course of investigation, Investigation Officer formed an opinion that charge-sheet should be submitted against named accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 28.06.2018, whereby named accused, i.e., applicant herein has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act whereas three other named accused have been exculpated.
6. Upon submission of above-noted charge-sheet, Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC Gautam Budh Nagvar vide Cognizance Taking/ Summoning Order dated 22.10.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.2844 of 2018, (State Vs. Amrit Goyal), under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar summoned the accused i.e. applicant herein.
7. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid, applicant who is a charge- sheeted accused has now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Present application came up for admission on 21.05.2019 and this Court passed following order:-
" Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present matter relates to a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and the said matter can be well considered by Mediation Centre of this Court. It is further contended that there are chances of reconciliation between the parties, therefore the matter may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.
Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, I have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.
It is directed that applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which 90% shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre.
The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be decided after giving notices to both the parties.
It is directed that Mediation Centre shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 10th October, 2019.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 2844 of 2018 (State Vs. Amrit Goyal) under section 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 124/2017, shall be kept in abeyance.
After depositing the amount, aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties and in the case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated."
9. Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad has submitted a report dated 19.11.2019 stating therein that no agreement could be arrived at by the parties.
10. During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case before court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties it was agreed that marital relationship between applicant and opposite party-2 be dissolved. Accordingly, a compromise agreement dated 23.02.2021 was drawn, which is duly notified by a notary. On the basis of compromise deed opposite party-2 filed a suit for divorce under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, which came to be registered as Petition No. Nil of 2021 (Saumya Agrawal @ Saumya Goyal Vs. Amrit Goyal). Copy of the plaint of divorce suit is on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support compromise application - of 2021. According to the terms of agreement as explicit from the plaint of above noted suit, it was agreed that applicant, who is opposite party-2 in above noted suit shall pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. A sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- was to be paid on first motion.
10. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has already paid a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- by means of Demand Draft No. 502049 drawn on ICICI Bank, Noida, Sector 119. In the light of above, proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence initiated by opposite party-2 and registered as Complaint Case No. 5641 of 2017 (Saumya Goyal Vs. Amrit Goyal) have been terminated vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. Furthermore, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by opposite party-2 by way of Criminal Misc. Case No. 252 of 2017 (Smt. Saumya Goyal Vs. Amrit Goyal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., have already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018. Same is on record at page 47 of the paper book.
11. Learned counsel for applicant next contended that on date balance amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- is due upon applicant. He has accordingly produced a Bank Draft bearing no. 502089 drawn on ICICI Bank in favour of opposite party-2. Same has been accepted by Mr. Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in court today on behalf of opposite party-2. He further submits no amount towards permanent alimony is now payable by applicant-1. Since parties have already compromised to withdraw the cases against each other, therefore, interest of justice requires that present criminal misc. application be allowed and entire proceedings of above mentioned case are quashed by this Court.
12. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicants have been charge- sheeted under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. An offence under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act is a crime against society. He further contends that offence under Section 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act. is a cognizable non-bailable offence. Charge-sheeted has been submitted against applicant on the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation. First informant/opposite party-2, Saumya Goyal alongwith five others have been nominated as prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned A.G.A. present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
14. Mr. Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 has not opposed present application.
He contends that parties, who are husband and wife have agreed to terminate their marital relationship. Consequently, a divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act has been filed. From the plaint of divorce suit is on record as Annexure-
2 to the compromise application no. Nil of 2021, applicant has agreed to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- to opposite party-2. He further contends that with the submission Bank Draft of Rs. 8,50,000/- today in Court, the entire amount of permanent alimony payable by applicant stands satisfied. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that once marital relationship between parties has itself come to an end on the basis of agreement between parties wherein and whereunder, it was agreed criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party-2 shall be withdrawn, present application deserves to be allowed.
15. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
15. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
16. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
17. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. In Dimpey Gujral (supra), it was held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as same fall in the category of crime against society. It was however observed that court should bear in mind that if because of compromise between the parties, 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 accused by not quashing the criminal proceedings, then in that eventuality High Court should quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) has observed that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
16. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties, as well as the fact that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction are remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.
18. In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings ofCriminal Case No.2844 of 2018, (State Vs. Amrit Goyal), under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 124/2017, under Sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.
P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,, District- Gautam Budh Nagar now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh Naga, are hereby quashed.
19. Application is, accordingly, allowed.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 nd