Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 476 (UTT)

RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-09-29

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. In these cases, the First Information Report was filed by respondent No. 2 – Smt. Rajni Sharma, under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Cantt, District Dehradun implicating the present applicants. Subsequently, a case was registered being Criminal Case No. 260 of 2013 under the aforesaid Sections, which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Dehradun. Thereafter, the police after investigating the case submitted the charge-sheet against the present applicants. Consequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicants. Hence the present applications invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant No. 1 – Rajeev Kumar Sharma is the husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2 – Smt. Rajni Sharma. They were married in the year 2008 and there is no issue out of this wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, series of litigations have been filed between them, which also include the present case at hand. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that some kind of settlement had been reached earlier between the parties and as a consequence of which a joint application was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Dehradun under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce on 30.04.2014. However, on the second motion, which was fixed in the month of July, the respondent No. 2 backed out. This has again given rise to allegation and counter allegations in the matter. 3. Today both i.e. the husband/applicant No. 1 – Rajeev Kumar Sharma and the wife/respondent No. 2 – Smt. Rajni Sharma are present in person before this Court. They have already recorded their statements before the appropriate forum a Registrar of this Court. 4. Now the report of Registrar is available on record, which shall be kept on record. According to it, the husband is ready to give ‘21.00 lakh (Rupees Twenty one lakh only) to the wife, out of the said amount ‘13.00 lakh (Rupees Thirteen lakh only) has already been paid by the husband, which is accepted by the wife/respondent No. 2 – Smt. Rajni Sharma. According to it, the husband is ready to give ‘21.00 lakh (Rupees Twenty one lakh only) to the wife, out of the said amount ‘13.00 lakh (Rupees Thirteen lakh only) has already been paid by the husband, which is accepted by the wife/respondent No. 2 – Smt. Rajni Sharma. During the compromise proceeding before the Registrar (Mediation), the husband – Rajeev Kumar Sharma handed over the demand draft of ‘7.00 lakh (Rupees Seven lakh only) to the wife, which is also recorded in the compromise proceedings. As far as the remaining ‘1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) is concerned, the same shall be handed over by the husband to his wife/respondent No. 2 at the time of final dissolution of marriage. 5. Both the parties are present today and they have agreed and stated that they are ready to withdraw all the criminal as well as the civil cases against each other pending before different courts. Learned counsel for the applicants further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab & another reported on 2012 (10) SCC 303 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:- “61. 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. 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 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.” 6. 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 correctness of the earlier decisions of 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 Cr.P.C., as no fruitful purpose will be solved to keep the criminal proceeding pending before the court below, as the proceedings before the court below are primarily private in nature. 7. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and particularly, considering the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 260 of 2013 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before court below as well as any other proceedings, including criminal and civil pending before the court below arising out of the matrimonial discord, are hereby quashed. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand disposed.