Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7221 of 2021
Petitioner :- Neha And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salman Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Husnaara Khatoon
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Husnaara Khatoon, learned counsel for the complainant.
The present writ petition is being preferred for quashing the first information report dated 30.07.2021 in Case Crime no.43/2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Present matter was taken up on 24.09.2021 and this Court has passed following order:-
"Supplementary affidavit as well as short counter-affidavit are taken on record.
On the basis of affidavit filed today, it has been claimed that amicable settlement has already taken place between the parties.
Let the parties be present before the Court on the next date fixed.
Put up this matter on 30.9.2021 as fresh before the appropriate Bench."
In response thereof, the complainant namely Smt. Saif Jahan d/o Shri Shahzade (Wife) Ahmad and Salamatullah s/o Habibullah (Father-in-law) are present in the Court. Both the parties are identified and recognized by their respective counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of averment mentioned in supplementary affidavit dated 09.09.2021, states that the parties have already resolved the dispute and compromise has arrived between the parties and accordingly the compromise deed dated 07.09.2021 has already been executed. The same is already appended alongwith supplementary affidavit. In this backdrop, he submits that the first information report is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant has given a nod to the said situation. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, same has come to be amicably resolved and as such the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC, there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
"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 favour 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."
Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal no.1489/2012) dated 29.09.2021 has considered Section 320 Cr.P.C. and sum-up the conclusion in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 with following observations:-
"19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest;
Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed;
Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s);
Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired between the parties;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any illwill and have no vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present age.
CONCLUSION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1489 OF 2012
21. Consequently, and for the reasons stated above, read with the settlement dated 13th September 2006, we find it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case. As a sequel thereto, all offences emanating out of the FIR leading to Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 stand annulled, and the judgment and orders passed by the trial court, appellate court and the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, the Appellants shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offences for all intents and purposes."
The present dispute was between the husband and wife. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case Crime no.43/2021 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj are quashed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021
A. Pandey