Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11290 of 2021 Applicant :- Arvind @ Arvind Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and Mr. Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel representing opposite party 2, who has put in appearance by filing his Vakalatnama in court today. Same is taken on record.
Learned counsel for applicants has filed joint affidavit on behalf of accused-applicant and opposite party 2 in court today which is also taken on record.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 25.03.2015 submitted in Case Crime No.271 of 2014, under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 12.7.2015 passed by court below in Case No.1090 of 2013, (State Vs. Arvind and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of above- mentioned case crime number, order dated 2.7.2019 whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicants as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It transpires from record that marriage of applicant 1 Arvind @ Arvind Kumar was solemnized with first informant/opposite party 2 Kavita on 21.1.2012. Subsequently, relations between applicant 1 and first informant/opposite party 2 who are husband and wife became strained on account of marital discord. Faced the despair and destitution first informant opposite party 2 initiated criminal proceedings against applicant 1 as well his family members. An F.I.R. dated 3.7.2014 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Smt. Kavita, which was registered as Case Crime No.271 of 2014, under sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar,. In the aforesaid F.I.R., eight persons, namely, Arvind @ Arvind Kumar, Kanchan Singh, Smt. Premwati, Ravi, Harendra, Km. Daya, Mithlesh and Chaman have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of same in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigating Officer formed an opinion that a charge-sheet should be submitted against named accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 25.03.2015, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Upon submission of above-noted charge-sheet, coginzance was taken upon same by court concerned, and simultaneously charge-sheeted accused were summoned by court below by a common Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 10.06.2015 passed in Case No.1090 of 2013, (State Vs. Arvind and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.
During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case before court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. Consequently, first informant/opposite party 2 stated residing in her matrimonial home from 5.8.2015. Consequently, applicants who are charged sheeted accused have now opposed this court by means of present application seeking quashing of entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Moreover, a joint affidavit of applicant 1 and opposite party 2 has been filed before this court whereby it has been prayed that entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case be quashed as applicant 1 and opposite party 2 are living together.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicants that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once applicant 1 and opposite party 2 who are husband and wife have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Dispute between parties is basically a matrimonial dispute. In view of compromise so entered between parties, first informant opposite party 2 is now residing with applicant 1 (husband) in her matrimonial home. It is thus urged that a broken family has reunited. It is thus contended that 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.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicants have been charge- sheeted under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. An offence under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. is a crime against society. He further contends that applicants who are charge sheeted accused were summoned by court below vide order dated 12.7.2015. However, applicants failed to honour the summons. Consequently, court below issued non-bailable warrants against applicants vide order dated 23.11.2017. Irrespective of above, applicants did not appear before court below. As a result, court below issued coercive process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against applicants vide order dated 7.2.2019. It is thus urged by learned A.G.A. that applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this court. 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.
Mr. Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel representing opposite party 2 however does not oppose present application. He contends that dispute between parties is essentially a matrimonial dispute. Applicant 1 and opposite party 2 who are husband and wife have amicably settled the dispute outside the court. On basis of settlement arrived at between parties, first informant/opposite party 2 is now residing with applicant 1 in her marital home since 5.8.2015. He therefore, contends that a broken family has now reunited. Therefore, in case proceedings of above mentioned case are allowed to continue same may result in disintegration of a happy family. He has then invited attention of court to the joint affidavit filed by parties before this court and on basis of same it is contended that once first informant/opposite party 2 has herself compromise the dispute with applicants no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. He also contends that dispute between parties is purely a private dispute. Criminality alleged to have been committed by applicants is not a crime against society.
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.
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."
Considering facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties and material on record the inescapable conclusion is that dispute between parties is essentially a matrimonial dispute. Criminality alleged to have been committed by applicants is not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. First informant/opposite party 2 is residing with applicant 1 at her matrimonial home since 5.8.2015. As such a broken family has reunited and leading a happy life. Same is clearly evident from joint affidavit of parties filed before court today. 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 of above mentioned criminal case 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.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No.1090 of 2013, (State Vs. Arvind and others), under Section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No.271 of 2014, under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 piyush