Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 469 (UTT)

SHRI PUNEET OBEROI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-09-24

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate with Mr.Prem Kaushal, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1. 3. Mr.Sandeep Tandon, Advocate present for the respondent no.2. 4. The first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.2 against the present applicant, which has been registered as FIR No.234 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323 & 504 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the present applicant. Consequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant and issued summons. 5. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of criminal proceedings. On the last occasion vide order dated 27.08.2015 following order was passed:- “Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate present for the applicant. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder present for the State. A first information report was lodged by the respondent No.2 who is the wife of the present applicant which has been registered as FIR No.234 of 2013 under Sections 498A/323/504 of IPC, at Police station Kotwali, District Dehradun. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet, thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued the summon to the present applicant. Applicant is facing a trial before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Meanwhile, according to the applicant, some kind of compromise has been reached between the parties. Subsequently, a decree of divorce has been passed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and the marriage has already been dissolved. Ms. Seema/respondent No.2 is present in person before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to provide a copy of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the respondent No.2. It is stated before this Court that as per the mutual settlement, applicant shall pay a total sum of Rs.42.00 lakhs (Rupees Forty two lakhs) to the respondent No.2, out of which Rs.41.00 lakhs (Rupees Forty one lakhs) has already been given to the respondent No.2. Today a demand draft of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) has been given to the respondent No.2 by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court. Let respondent No.2 file an affidavit to this effect within a period of three weeks. Today a demand draft of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) has been given to the respondent No.2 by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court. Let respondent No.2 file an affidavit to this effect within a period of three weeks. As an interim measure, it is provided that further proceedings in Case No.2775 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. List this matter after three weeks in the daily cause list.” 6. The present applicant is the husband of respondent no.2. Admittedly their marriage was solemnized on 29.10.2001 thereafter matrimonial discord arose between them, which was resulted in the First Information Report. 7. Meanwhile some kind of settlement arrived at between the parties and consequently application for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court Dehradun, which was decreed and the marriage of the present applicant and respondent no.2 was dissolved vide order dated 21.07.2015. 8. The complainant/respondent no.2-Ms. Seema is present in the Court today, who has been identified by her counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits before the Court that out of the total sum of Rs.42.00 (Rupees forty two lakh) the complainant/ respondent no.2 has received an amount of Rs.41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty one lakh) and on the last occasion she was given a demand draft of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) by the applicant. Now, as per compromise she has received the entire amount. 9. Mr.Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 admits that the compromise took place between the parties and she has also filed an affidavit to this effect. The relevant paragraphs (nos. 2 & 3) of the said affidavit read as under:- “2. That I have settled all my disputes with the petitioner. I have received the settlement money along-with the other settlement articles e.g. jewelry from the petitioner including Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) which I have received on 27.08.2015 before this Hon’ble Court. 3. That now I have no objection if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to allow the instant petition vide Criminal Misc. Application No.969 of 2015 and quash the FIR No.234 of 2013 and charge sheet filed in criminal case no.2775 of 2013 State Vs. Puneet Oberoi, U/s 498A, 323 & 504 of IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Dehradun.” 10. 3. That now I have no objection if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to allow the instant petition vide Criminal Misc. Application No.969 of 2015 and quash the FIR No.234 of 2013 and charge sheet filed in criminal case no.2775 of 2013 State Vs. Puneet Oberoi, U/s 498A, 323 & 504 of IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Dehradun.” 10. Learned counsel for the parties further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Sing Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:- “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 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 flavour stand on a 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. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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.” 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 wherein the law down earlier by Hon’ble Apex Court in Nikhil Merchant ( 2008 (9) SCC 677 and B.S.Joshi ( 2003 (4) SCC 675 ) have been reiterated and in the considered view of this Court that the present case is a fit case to invoke inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as no fruitful purpose will be solved to keep the criminal proceeding in the court below pending the present orders are being passed. 12. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and particularly, considering the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2775 of 2013 (State Vs.Puneet Oberoi) under Sections 498A, 323 & 504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed. 13. 12. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and particularly, considering the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2775 of 2013 (State Vs.Puneet Oberoi) under Sections 498A, 323 & 504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed. 13. With the above observation, the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed.