Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32359 of 2019 Applicant :- Avinash Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shitala Sahay Srivastav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Shitla Sahay Srivastava, learned Advocate has filed his short counter affidavit alongwith his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State/opposite party no.1, Sri Shitla Sahay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 11.05.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2019 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2487 of 2019 (State vs. Avinash and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0233 of 2019, under sections 323, 506, 498A I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (in respect of applicant nos.1 and 2) and under Sections 323, 506, 354, 498A I.P.C. & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (in respect of applicant no.3), Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad.
Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant no.1 Avinash Sharma is husband, applicant no.2 Shashi Sharma is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 Uma Shankar @ Umesh Sharma is father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 Jyoti Sharma. It is submitted that after marriage on account of acrimonious relation between the husband and wife, the opposite party no.2 lodged F.I.R. on 30.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0233 of 2019 at Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, under Sections 323, 354, 506, 498A & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, in which chargesheet was submitted on 11.05.2019. Thereafter parties concerned have entered into a compromise and a settlement took place between them. In paragraph 15 of the application, it is mentioned that now the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are living together and from the wedlock one child was born.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants.
The opposite party no.2 Smt.Jyoti Sharma in her short counter affidavit mentioned that she is submitting short counter affidavit without any pressure of any person. She is mother of one child and leading her life happily with her husband and she also wants to close the entire proceedings against the applicants, as on date there is no dispute between the parties concerned. The opposite party no.2 is present before this Court in person and she has also stated that now all the disputes between the parties concerned has come to an end, therefore, she has no objection in case impugned chargesheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto against the applicants are quashed by this Court.
The Apex Court recently in a judgment dated 5.3.2019 rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, considering previous judgments and section 320 Cr.P.C. has laid down guideline for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in case of settlement of dispute between the accused and complainant. The para 13 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein-above, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein-above;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
The object of criminal law is primarily to visit the offender with certain consequences. He may be made to suffer punishment or by paying compensation to the victim, but the law at the same time also provides that it may not be necessary in every criminal offence to mete out punishment, particularly, if the victim wants to bury the hatchet. If the offender and victim want to move on in a matrimonial cases, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as on date in the light of dictum and guideline laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I think the interests of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.
On making settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue.
As a fallout and consequence of above discussions, the impugned charge sheet dated 11.05.2019, summoning order dated 19.07.2019 and proceedings of Criminal Case No.2487 of 2019 (State vs. Avinash and another) arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2019, under sections 323, 506, 498A I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (in respect of applicant nos.1 and 2) and under Sections 323, 506, 354, 498A I.P.C. & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (in respect of applicant no.3), Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad against the applicants are hereby quashed.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 SKD