Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1002 (ALL)

ASHISH SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-26

V.K.DIXIT

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Dixit, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By the instant petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 8.1.2008 in Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2007 (State v. Ashish Sharma and others) relating to Crime No. 320 of 2007 under Sections 342/384/366/506/467/468/471/420/120-B, I.P.C. of Police Station Bazar Khala, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and because of that an F.I.R. of the aforesaid Criminal Case has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners. 4. For the purpose of settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2008. The parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving their disputes and differences. The settlement/agreement entered into on 16.1.2009 between petitioner No. 1-Sri Ashish Sharma (Husband) and opposite party No. 2-Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava (Wife) is placed on record. Sri Ashish Sharma-petitioner No. 1 who is identified by Sri Vinay Misra, holding brief of Smt. Nalini Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava-opposite party No. 2, who is identified by Sri R.N. Singh, Advocate, appeared in person before this Court and confirmed that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement/agreement. It was settled between the parties that opposite party No. 2-Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava does not want to proceed any legal action against her husband petitioner No. 1- Ashish Sharma and other petitioners (Family members of petitioner No. 1) in future. The opposite party No. 2-Smt. Meenakshi Srivastava reaffirmed before this Court that she does not want to proceed with the aforesaid Criminal Case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, District Lucknow. The petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 also stated that they are living harmonious married life. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that since some of the Sections in the aforesaid Criminal Case are non-compoundable and due to this legal hurdle they could not file a formal compromise before the Court below. The petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 also stated that they are living harmonious married life. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that since some of the Sections in the aforesaid Criminal Case are non-compoundable and due to this legal hurdle they could not file a formal compromise before the Court below. Therefore, the proceeding in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2007 (State v. Ashish Sharma and others) relating to Crime No. 320 of 2007 under Sections 342/384/366/506/467/468/471/420/120-B, I.P.C. of Police Station Bazar Khala, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, District Lucknow be quashed by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 1386 and in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677 . In the case of B.S. Joshi and others (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court propounded the law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash Criminal Proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 7. The provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under : “The High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then the High Court will entertain the application is not contemplated by the Court.” The words “Nothing in this Code” used in Section 482 is non-obstante clause, and given it overriding effect over other provisions in the Cr.P.C. 8. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 9. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 9. The provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C. was enacted to emphasize the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then High Court will entertain the application and make the necessary orders to secure the interest of justice. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law propounded by Hon’ble the Apex Court in above mentioned cases, it is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of Criminal Proceeding, since continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise and where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. 11. Consequently, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 8.1.2008 in Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2007 (State v. Ashish Sharma and others) arising out of Crime No. 320 of 2007 under Sections 342/384/366/506/467/468/471/420/120-B, I.P.C. of Police Station Bazar Khala, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, District Lucknow are hereby quashed. ————