Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10417 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vivek Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A,Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Devi Dayal, learned counsel for the complainant.
The matter was taken up on 15.12.2021 and this Court has passed following order:-
"Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant, today itself, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 25.09.2021 in Case Crime no.295/2021 under Section 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners apprised to the Court that the matter has amicably been resolved between the parties and the petitioner no.1 has solemnized marriage with respondent no.3 on 09.11.2021.
The said position is endorsed by Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.
Let Shri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. may obtain necessary instructions qua to the factual aspect of the matter.
Put up as fresh on 23.12.2021. Till the next date of listing, the respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner pursuant to FIR dated 25.09.2021. Needless to say that meanwhile if factum of claim set out before this Court is correct, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to proceed as per the provisions contained under Section 169 Cr.P.C..
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present matter, on the intervention of the respective families the matter has been resolved and the marriage has also been solemnized between the petitioner, Vivek Yadav and the fourth respondent, Beena Yadav on 09.11.2021 at Arya Samaj Temple, Aliganj, Lucknow and the marriage certificate dated 09.11.2021 is appended as Annexure no.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. In this backdrop, he submits that the first information report is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have 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."
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 First Information Report (FIR) dated 25.09.2021 in Case Crime No.295/2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar are quashed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 RKP