Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1742 (ALL)

Girija Devi v. State of U. P.

2022-11-04

SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Sameer Jain, J.) 1. Heard Sri Brij Gopal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned Brief Holder of the State-respondent. 2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been moved on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding of case No. 7754 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah as well as summoning order dated 6.8.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant nos. 1 and 2 are in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 while applicant no. 3 is her husband and both husband and wife have amicably settled their dispute and with regard to the offence under section 406 IPC, a mediation proceeding was held between the parties which succeeded on 24.8.2022 and on the basis of report of the mediation centre of the case relates to section 406 IPC dated 24.8.2022 proceeding of that case was quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16781 of 2020 and as per the final settlement dated 24.8.2022 both husband and wife i.e. applicant no. 3 and opposite party no. 2 agreed to withdraw all the cases pending between them due to marital discord and pursuant to the settlement dated 24.8.2022, they also filed an application under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce through mutual consent and therefore, no dispute is left between them and present proceeding which also arose due to marital discord is liable to be quashed in view of the above, compromise dated 24.8.2022 executed between the parties before mediation and conciliation centre of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that the present dispute is purely matrimonial dispute and applicant no. 3, the husband and opposite party no. 4. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that the present dispute is purely matrimonial dispute and applicant no. 3, the husband and opposite party no. 2, the wife have already settled their dispute at mediation and conciliation centre of this Court in a case relates to Section 406 IPC which was also outcome of their matrimonial discord and in this regard on 24.8.2022 a final settlement took place between the parties and they agreed to withdraw all the cases arose due to matrimonial dispute and therefore, if proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived between the parties at mediation and conciliation centre of this Court then he is having no objection. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant no. 1 and 2 are in laws of opposite party no. 2 and applicant no. 3 is her husband and due to marital discord some cases were filed by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants. The present case is also the outcome of marital discord arose between the parties. From the record it further reflects that in a case which relates to section 406 IPC initiated by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, they approached this Court vide Crl. Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16781 of 2020 in which this Court referred the matter to mediation and conciliation centre of this Court and before mediation proceeding applicant no. 3, the husband and opposite party no. 2, the wife i.e. informant of the case settled their dispute and on 24.8.2022, a compromise has been executed between them at mediation and conciliation centre of this Court in mediation proceeding and on the basis of the agreement dated 24.8.2022, this Court on 19.9.2022 quashed the proceeding of case relates to section 406 IPC pending between the parties. 7. 2, the wife i.e. informant of the case settled their dispute and on 24.8.2022, a compromise has been executed between them at mediation and conciliation centre of this Court in mediation proceeding and on the basis of the agreement dated 24.8.2022, this Court on 19.9.2022 quashed the proceeding of case relates to section 406 IPC pending between the parties. 7. From the perusal of the settlement executed between the parties dated 24.8.2022 in mediation proceeding of this Court which has been annexed as annexure-6 to the affidavit, it appears that both the parties have already filed an application under section 13 B Hindu Marriage Act for their divorce through mutual consent and they also agreed to withdraw all the cases pending between them arose due to their marital discord and therefore, it appears from the settlement dated 24.8.2022 that no dispute is left between the parties and only application under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending as till date, cooling period of six months could not be passed and this Court after considering the settlement dated 24.8.2022 executed between the parties in mediation proceeding before mediation and conciliation centre of this Court has already quashed the proceeding pending against the applicant with regard to the case relates to sections 406 and 506 IPC, therefore, in my view on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties dated 24.8.2022 in mediation proceeding, the proceeding pending against the applicants can also be quashed. 8. The present dispute is although marital dispute and it relates to section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act in which 498A is non-compoundable. However, the law is now settled that even in non-compoundable cases this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties in matrimonial dispute. The three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:- "13. The three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:- "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: (i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; (ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; (iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; (iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein-above; (v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." 9. Again recently, Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgements observed in para-19 as follows:- "19. Again recently, Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgements observed in para-19 as follows:- "19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 420 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." 10. Therefore, from the judgement of the Apex Court, law is fairly settled now that even in cases which relates to non-compoundable offences, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings in terms of compromise executed between both the parties. 11. As present dispute is purely matrimonial dispute in which husband and wife i.e. applicant no. 3 and opposite party no. 2, the complainant of the case have settled their dispute and no dispute is left between the parties, therefore, on the ground of compromise dated 24.8.2022 arrived between the parties in mediation proceeding, the proceeding pending against the applicants before the court below is hereby quashed. 12. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed. 13. As in case relates to Sections 406, 506 IPC, opposite party no. 2, the wife of applicant no. 3 has already participated in the mediation proceeding held before mediation and conciliation centre of this Court, therefore, without issuing notice to her, this order has been passed.