1. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate.
2. By means of the present application, the applicants have sought for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.14942 of 2019 (State Vs. Kandhai and others) arising out of case crime No.350/2019, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Payagpur, District Bahraich pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Bahraich as well as chargesheet No.01/2019 dated 4.9.2019 and summoning order dated 5.12.2019 against the applicants on the basis of compromise deed dated 22.10.2020, contained in Annexure No.6 to the application.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and this Court had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to verify the said agreement. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich has submitted his report on 3.12.2020 wherein he has stated that all the parties to the settlement have appeared before him and he is verifying the said settlement.
4. It has been submitted that present criminal proceedings have arisen out of matrimonial dispute which has escalated into a minor assault and looking into the nature of the offences alleged against the applicants, it is clear that the same is a private dispute and this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is empowered to quash such proceedings in the interest of justice.
5. It has been submitted that the dispute amongst the parties was extremely trivial and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between parties.
6. In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Miniswamy and others,, 1977 (2) SCC 699, a three- Judge Bench of this Court referred to Section 482 of the Code and in paragraph 7 (pg. 703) of the Report held as under :-
"7. .. In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
The Court then observed that the considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by Section 482ought not to be encased within the straitjacket of a rigid formula.
7. In the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-
"We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. In so far as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter.
8.This Court is not unmindful of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. In light of the fact that the settlement has been arrived at between the applicants and the private respondents and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between parties, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the applicants to be prosecuted in the said trial, therefore this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
10.The proceedings of Case No.14942 of 2019 (State Vs. Kandhai and others) arising out of case crime No.350/2019, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Payagpur, District Bahraich pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Bahraich as well as chargesheet No.01/2019 dated 4.9.2019 and summoning order dated 5.12.2019 against the applicants, are set aside.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.