Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 213 (UTT)

MANMEET SINGH v. JAYA ARORA

2014-05-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the impugned summoning order dated 04.03.2010 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 401 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. None is present for the respondent no.2, despite service of notice upon her. 3. Complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) filed a criminal complaint case against four accused persons including the applicants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Statement of the complainant Smt. Jaya Arora was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of Jagdish Arora, Jaimal Singh and Tirthraj were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Since the accused persons lived in a place which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, he directed SO concerned to investigate into the matter. SO Kichha inquired and submitted his report. He found the ingredients of the complaint to be true. On the basis of such statements (under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.) and the inquiry report of PS concerned, having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 04.03.2010. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 04.03.2010, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants. 4. It was stated by the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) that she was married to applicant no. 1 according to Hindu (Sikh) rites and rituals at Kathgodam, District Nainital. The parents of the complainant gave articles in the marriage to the best of their capacity but her in-laws were not satisfied with such dowry given in the marriage. They demanded a cash of Rs. two lacs soon after the marriage. An application was given to the SSP Udham Singh Nagar. The husband and wife were summoned by the women help line. A compromise took place in April, 2007. Respondent no. 2 came back to her matrimonial home, but again she was harassed for non-fulfillment of dowry. They demanded a cash of Rs. two lacs soon after the marriage. An application was given to the SSP Udham Singh Nagar. The husband and wife were summoned by the women help line. A compromise took place in April, 2007. Respondent no. 2 came back to her matrimonial home, but again she was harassed for non-fulfillment of dowry. Her parents told the members of her matrimonial home that they were unable to pay Rs. two lacs and a car. They insisted for the same. She was left at her parental home at Kichha. She along with her witnesses supported the complainant story. The report presented by SO Kichha verified the same. Applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the respondent no. 2. 5. The first application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being C-482 Petition No. 302 of 2014 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2013. Now new facts have emerged from the record of the case to show that the respondent no. 2 has settled the matter amicably with the applicants, as is evident from her affidavit dated 05.04.2013. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that such an affidavit was not in his knowledge when C-482 Petition No. 302 of 2010 was decided on 20.11.2013. 6. In the affidavit dated 05.04.2013, respondent no. 2 has mentioned in para 6 & 7 that the pending proceedings before the Court shall be got settled on the basis of such compromise. Respondent no.2 also gave such statement before learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar that she has decided to part with her ways of life. She also pleaded before the Family Court that pending proceedings between the parties shall be got settled amicably. Marriage of Jaya Arora (wife) and Manmeet Singh (husband) was accordingly dissolved by Judge, Family Court, vide judgment and order dated 06.04.2013. 7. Since none is present on behalf of the respondent no.2, despite service of notice, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, which are substantiated by the documents brought on record. 8. Whereas offences punishable under Sections 323 & 504 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not. 8. Whereas offences punishable under Sections 323 & 504 of IPC are compoundable offences within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the complainant-respondent no. 2 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicants or not? 9. Learned counsel for the parties i.e. applicants and respondent-State drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “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 accordance 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. 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 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.” 10. A reference may also be had to the decision of Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 * in this regard. 11. The instant case is squarely covered by the above rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 8 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. 12. The reply to the question, posed by this Court in para no. 8 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicants are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably. 12. Accordingly, summoning order dated 04.03.2010 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 401 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are quashed qua applicants. 13. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus disposed of in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.