Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45630 of 2014 Applicant :- Smt. Reshu Jain And 6 Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nirbhay Singh,Santosh Shukla
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 14.8.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ferozabad in Complaint Case No. 3900 of 2013 under Section 406 I.P.C. against applicant nos 1 to 5 and under sections 504, 506 IPC against applicant nos. 6 and 7, Police Station Uttar, District Ferozabad.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants Sri R.K. Dwevedi that opposite party no. 2 who is complainant in this case has entered into compromise with all the accused persons and now there is no dispute left between them and the opposite side and the proceedings of this case should be quashed. Reliance has been placed by him on Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below:
"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 predominatingly 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 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."
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has admitted this fact that the opposite party no. 2 has entered into compromise and an application dated 13.04.2014 along with an affidavit has also been filed in Court, in paragraph no. 3 of which it is clearly stated by him that the applicants and opposite party No. 2 have entered into a compromise outside the Court due to interference of some of the relatives and the persons of their locality and he does not want to proceed with the proceedings of this case.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the said compromise.
I have gone through the contents of the complaint made by opposite party no. 2. It is mentioned in the said complaint that the son of opposite party no. 2 namely Mrigrender Bhushan Jain was married to accused applicant no. 1 on 28.10.2009 but the conduct and character of the accused-applicant no.1 was not good and she used to quarrel with the family members of opposite party no. 2. On 19.06.2010 at about 02:00 p.m. all the accused-applicants had come to the house of opposite party no. 2 and requested that the accused applicant no.1 (daughter- in-law of opposite party no.2) be sent to her parental home along with her jewellery as some religious ceremony was to be attended by her. The wife of opposite party no. 2 refused to send her daughter-in-law (accused-applicant no.1) because she was pregnant and then she had gone out to call opposite party no.2 who was in his shop along with his son and when they came back, all the accused-applicants had left the house and opposite party no.2 found that the jewellery belonging to him was missing. Therefore, the said jewellery was demanded back from the accused side but the same was being avoided to be returned. Then he approached S.S.P., Firozabad. Thereafter, the jewellery was returned to opposite party No. 2. His daughter-in-law had again gone to her matrimonial home and had filed a false case of maintenance against his son but that was also got compromised with the intervention of some persons and she again came back to her matrimonial home and started living there. Third time again his daughter-in-law went to her parents house without permission of opposite party no. 2 and lodged a false case of demand of dowry but when he demanded the jewellery back which had been taken away by her which belonged to opposite party no. 2, the same was denied to be returned back. Thereafter, accused-applicant Nos. 6 and 7 i.e. Praveen and Aashu came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and gave threat to him and also abused him. After recording of statements of the complainant and his wife, the accused applicant nos. 1 to 5 have been summoned under Section 406 I.P.C. and accused applicant nos. 6 and 7 have been summoned under Section 504/506 I.P.C. but now the parties have entered into compromise.
The law cited above states that where there is a dispute between the parties which is of private nature, the same can be settled between them and a compromise can be effected.
In view of the above, the criminal proceedings of this case deserve to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present proceedings pending, there being remote possibility of any conviction.
In view of above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the summoning order dated 14.8.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ferozabad in Complaint Case No. 3900 of 2013 under Section 406 I.P.C. against applicant nos 1 to 5 and under sections 504, 506 IPC against applicant nos. 6 and 7, Police Station Uttar, District Ferozabad stands quashed.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019/Madhurima