Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8007 of 2021 Applicant :- Meraz Ahmad And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.2.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.378 of 2019 (Razda Khatoon Vs. Meraz Ahmad and others) under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kadadham, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the parties had settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and the complainant/informant of the case does not want to pursue that case. The dispute is private in nature and thus proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
As per report of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), 2nd/Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 10.8.2021, the compromise between the parties has already been verified.
Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, 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 thatcapacity 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 underSection 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 hereinabove;
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."
In view of the aforesaid fact, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 is allowed and proceedings of Complaint Case No.378 of 2019 (Razda Khatoon Vs. Meraz Ahmad and others) under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kadadham, District Kaushambi is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 S. Singh