Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28546 of 2014 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dr. Kuldeep Mishra
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Supplementary-Affidavit has been filed today by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 wherewith compromise has also been annexed which has been arrived at between the parties.
Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivasta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dr. Kuldeep Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.395 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Chaudhary), arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, & Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Parasurampur, District Basti, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11.
It is argued by learned counsel for the parties that this is a case of no injury; out of court settlement has been made between both the parties and O.P. No.2 wants to withdraw Criminal Proceedings against the accused applicant. It is further argued that opposite party No.2 has agreed to close the proceedings subject to the payment of Rs.6,60,000/- by the accused- applicant, out of which Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid in front of this Court and the remaining amount of Rs.3,16,000/- shall be paid by the applicant to her at the time of getting the proceeding of Original Suit No.511 of 2016 and proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 125(3) Cr.P.C. closed. They have agreed that there will be no relationship of husband and wife between them.
In pursuance of the said compromise, the draft of Rs.3,00,000/- has been received by Smt. Sushila Devi in Court, who has been verified by her counsel Sri Dr. Kuldeep Mishra, Advocate.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection, if the proceeding are quashed in view of the compromise having been entered into between the parties.
Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 which is as follows:-
"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."
After having perused the contents of the F.I.R., I am convinced that the allegations made therein are nothing but of private nature as it appears to be a matrimonial dispute as a result of which this occurrence has taken place, therefore, in view of the law laid down in above cited case, the proceedings in the present case are liable to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present proceeding pending there being remote possibility of any conviction.
allowed and the entire proceeding of Case No.395 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Arun Kumar Chaudhary), arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, & Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Parasurampur, District Basti, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11, stands quashed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Ravi Kant