1. Vakalatnama field by Sri Shesh Mani Dubey, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Girdhari Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Shesh Mani Dubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Chargesheet No. 173 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 as well as summoning order dated 01.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Sitapur and criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No.6285 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.201 of 2018 under Sections 376-B, 498-A, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur on the ground of Compromise deed dated 25.01.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. After the marriage a domestic dispute arose in between the parties and just aggression in grievous offence the F.I.R. under Sections 376-B, 498-A, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act has been lodged by respondent No.2 against applicants. The ingredients of offence are not made out by the perusal of F.I.R.. Neither there was any separation between applicant No.1 and respondent No. 2 nor any forceful sexual relation has been conjugated. By the intervention of family members, applicants and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute out of the court amicably and they are living peacefully alongwith each other.
5. It has further been stated that earlier a petition under Section 482/378/407 No.3151 of 2020 was instituted by the applicants to quash the chargesheet on the ground of compromise and the maintainability of compromise has been decided in that proceeding, therefore, the court has sent the compromise for verification before the trial court. Now, the compromise deed has been verified by the court concerned on 25.01.2021 and verification order of the court has been annexed as Annexure 1 with the petition. At present no dispute is left in between the parties, hence impugned chargesheet be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 conceded with the arguments of counsel for applicants that the matter between applicants and opposite party No. 2 has amicably been settled and after compromise, both the parties are residing with each other and living their happy married life. Further parties have no grievance with each other. If, the petition is allowed on the basis of above compromise, opposite party No.2 will not have any objection.
7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred in the High Court rules under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in several cases.
8. In case of Dinesh Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and others; Crl. Misc. Application No. 37471 of 2017 decided on 16.11.2017; the coordinate Bench of this Court has laid down the legal position that civil disputes as well as matrimonial dispute between private parties and criminal matter which have no grave effect, can be quashed on the basis of compromise. The relevant para-7 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"7.) A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the court's process may be averted. Even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. A criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial dispute has been found to be the proceedings of the same class where the inherent jurisdiction of this court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them. There are many other litigations which may also fall in the same class even though they do not arise out of matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations which do not have grave and deleterious social fall-outs may also be settled between the parties. In such matters also when parties approached the court jointly with the prayer to put an end to the criminal litigations in which they had formerly locked their horns, or if the record or the mediation centre's report indicates a rapprochement in between the parties, the Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power and terminate the pending proceedings. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon to depose in the court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a futile exercise in vain and the precious time of court is attended with nothing except a cruel wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are the offences against the State and the inter-se compromise between the litigants cannot be countenanced with and the court despite the rapprochement arrived at in between the parties, would still not like to terminate the prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes of very grave nature entailing far reaching deleterious ramifications against the society. In those matters, the courts do not encourage either mediation or a compromise through negotiation and even the Apex Court has carved out exceptions and did not approve the quashing of non-compoundable offences regardless of their gravity. The Courts have to be discreet and circumspect and must see whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is indeed serving the ends of justice or to the contrary defeating the same."
9. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court by discussing earlier decision has discussed the principles of ends of justice particularly in contexts with matrimonial dispute. Relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"12) The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13) The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
14) There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harassor torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.
15) In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
10. In the case of Najmul Hasan and others vs. State of U.P. and others; this Court has observed in paras 15 & 16 that:-
"15) Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on 07.05.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No.3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No.3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise.
16) We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the proceedings of the First Information Report dated 14.09.2017, vide Case Crime No.0404 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow, lodged by Smt.Anjum Rizvi-the opposite party No.3."
11. In case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and others; Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the findings as laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) relevant paras 12 & 13 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
13) There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders."
12. Since, parties of the present case have amicably settled their disputes which arose due to matrimonial relation in such a situation it will be futile to engage them in further litigation. After getting relief from legal proceedings both the parties may live their life happy married life with each other. In present scenario the chance of ultimate conviction is also bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceeding against the applicants. It may be sheer wastage of valuable time to Court also.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the chargecheet No.173/ 2018 dated 20.09.2018 arising out of case Crime No.201 of 2018, under Sections 376-B, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur, is hereby quashed. The instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Reena/-