1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed to quash the order dated 19.12.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020, by learned Additional District Judge-XIV, Lucknow and also to quash judgment and order dated 29.02.2020 and 02.03.2020 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ayodhya Prakaran) Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 44946 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.17 of 2015, Police Station Mahila, Lucknow under Section 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short D.P. Act) and also the entire proceedigns of the case.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:-
(i) A First Information Report No.0017 of 2015 was registered on the basis of written complaint of Smt. Manju Yadav (respondent No.4) under Section 498A,323, 504, 506,406 of I.P.C. and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.
(ii) After investigation chargesheet was submitted and the court concerned took cognizance under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506,406 of I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P. Act. The charges were framed and the trial was conducted and the accused persons were convicted by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ayodhya Prakaran) Lucknow. Against that judgment of conviction, the applicants/accused persons filed an appeal. In that appeal the applicants/ appellants moved application for quashing the entire proceedings of case arising out of Crime No. 17 of 2015 on the basis of compromise. The appellate Court after hearing the parties rejected the application of the applicants observing that Section 498 A of I.P.C. is not compoundable, so appellants can not be absolved of their criminal liability.
(iii) Being aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment and order this petition was filed. On 05.02.2021, this Court passed the order directing the applicants and respondent No.4 to appear before the learned Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
(iv) Learned Senior Registrar verified the compromise filed by the parties and submitted the report dated 09.02.2021.
3. Heard Sri Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and respondent No.4 have settled the dispute amicably. The settlement deed was written and verified under the order of this Court by learned Senior Registrar of this Court. The verification report is on record. Now there remains no dispute left between the parties. So the judgment and order referred above be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 acceded to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7. Learned A.G.A. made submission that in the present matter the conviction has already been made by the competent court. The judgment passed by Competent Court cannot be quashed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it can only be set-aside under the provisions of law either in appeal or in revision not otherwise.
8. Considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the present matter the applicants have been found guilty and convicted by Competent Court and the appeal against that judgment is pending, wherein the applicants moved application to quash the conviction so made on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, but that was rejected.
10. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under (relevant paragraph 61):-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 flavour 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 criminalproceeding 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."
11. The perusal of the judgment of Apex Court (supra) shows that in it the proceedings were quashed at the stage of trial and not after the conviction. Now question arises whether the judgment passed by Competent Court can be quashed in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This question arose before the Bombay High Court in reference of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad And Ors, 2006 Cri. LJ 4591 wherein following two issues were referred to the Division Bench which are as follows:
"(1) The decision of the Apex Court, in B.S. Joshi's case is not an authority to hold that offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is a compoundable offence, whcih can be compounded with the permission of the Court.
(2) Whether it is open for the High Court to quash the criminal action in exercise of Inherent powers even in a case which has ended with an oder of conviction after trial."
While answering the above these two issues the Division Bench of Bombay High Court answered as follows:-
"14. Since the Supreme Court had approached this issue with a broader perspective and the Issue was whether it is permissible to quash criminal proceedings (stress Added), or complaint or FIR and in our opinion, even the criminal proceedings can be quashed irrespective of whether there is conviction or otherwise. We, therefore, answer both the Issues as under:
Ans. to Issue No. 1 :- The decision of the Supreme Court gives powers to the High Court to permit compounding of matrimonial offences and the High Court has powers to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.
Ans. to Issue No. 2 : Even in case of conviction, inherent powers can be exercised and criminal proceedings can be quashed."
12. In the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by Hon'be Supreme Court and by the Bombay High Court (supra) and keeping in mind, the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute, it will be just to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 44946 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.17 of 2015, Police Station Mahila, Lucknow under Section 498A, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
13. The petition is allowed. The order dated 19.12.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020, by learned Additional District Judge-XIV, Lucknow and judgment and order dated 29.02.2020 and 02.03.2020 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ayodhya Prakaran) Lucknow in Case Crime No.17 of 2015, Police Station Mahila, Lucknow under Section 498A, 406 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act and also entire proceeidngs of the case are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 28.07.2021 A.K. Singh (Saroj Yadav, J.)