Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10644 of 2004 Applicant :- Vineet Sehgal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Chaddha,J.K. Srivastava,Rajeev Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.M. Tripathi,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Chandra Bhan Gupta,Jitendra Singh,Krishan Pahal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and Sri S.A. Murtaza, A.G.A. for State and Sri Jitendra Singh, Advocate for Complainant-Respondent.
2. Applicant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash charge sheet dated 21.02.2004 as well as further proceedings in Case No. 1651 of 2004, under Sections 498A and 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut pending in the Court of Tenth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
3. Both learned counsel for parties stated that applicant and complainant have resolved their dispute and are living together. In this regard compromise entered between two has been placed on record.
4. It is contended that since dispute relates to matrimonial matter, therefore, in order to allow parties to live a peaceful life, it would be appropriate that impugned proceedings be quashed. Reliance is placed in this regard upon Supreme Court's judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 wherein Larger Bench in para 13 has answered questions referred to it as under:
“13. 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 that capacity 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 under Section 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 impact 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.”
5. I find that dispute in the present case falls in the category as mentioned in para 13(v) of the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan (supra) and hence in the light of fact that both parties have entered into compromise and now living together peaceful life, I allow this application and quash the charge sheet dated 21.02.2004 and all proceedings of Case No. 1651 of 2004 in Case Crime No. 41 of 2003, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Xth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 AK