Single judge allowed Section 482 application quashing criminal proceedings in a domestic dispute arising from matrimonial discord, holding that since parties amicably settled differences, quashing the trial served the interest of justice.
Quashed the proceeding of Case Crime No. 216 of 2015 and the summoning order dated 10.11.2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5389 of 2019
Applicant :- Sanjay Goyal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Sri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is targeted against the charge sheet dated 10.01.2016 numbered as 4/16 arise from Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, u/s 232, 504, 506, 498-A, 376, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Saidnagli, District Amroha and the summoning order dated 10.11.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) J.P. Nagar/Amroha on the basis of compromise dated 19.07.2018 before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, pending before the court of A.C.J.M. as Case No. 2988/2016 (State Vs. Sanjay and others).
Since the learned counsel for the parties are present before the Court and they have consented that the matter may be decided on the admission stage itself and thus, in the light of the consent, I am persuaded to decide the same in the light of compromise dated 19.07.2018.
Before coming to the merits of the case it is imperative to give a skeleton of the facts which is given rise to the present controversy. The applicant no. 1 is the husband whereas the opposite party no. 2 is his wife and rest of the applicants are jeth, mother-in-law, jethani and mausiya saas. It is contended that, from the FIR is it abundantly clear that a frustrated wife through an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has lodged the FIR on 18.08.2015 for the incident said to have been taken place on 28.05.2015, whereby the opposite party no. 2 has roped her husband Sanjay Goyal and all his family members in accordance with prevailing practice in the society now a days for the alleged additional demand of dowry in the shape of a maruti car and Rs. 50 thousand in cash and on account of non satisfaction the daughter-in-law was treated in most inhuman way. As mentioned above, on account of aborted matrimonial relationship, the frustrated wife has levelled all sorts of abhorring and derogatory allegations against her husband and jeth. However, she has submitted that out of this wedlock she was blessed with a baby girl, namely Gungun. It is further contended in the FIR that when she became pregnant for the second time her sex determination test was conducted and she was forced to abort her "still born child". Thereafter mercilessly ousted her daughter-in-law on 28.05.2015 from her matrimonial house.
After registering the case, police has investigated the matter and in the statement of opposite party no. 2 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. she
has stated that she was never admitted herself for any medical examination so as to substantiate the allegation of unnatural sex and abortion. However, after conducting investigation the police has submitted a charge sheet u/s 323, 504, 506, 498A, 376, 377 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act and the learned Magistrate on 10.11.2016 has taken mechanical cognizance of the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court to the settlement/agreement arrived at between the applicants and opposite party no. 2 at Mediation & Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh which is annexed as annexure- 6 to the petition. This agreement was arrived at between the parties on 19.07.2018 before District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. After recording the statements of contesting parties the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad has passed a reasoned order on 30.07.2018.
I have gone through the settlement/agreement arrived at between Sanjay Goyal and Ms. Garima by filing a joined petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the court concerned and it was arrived at between the parties that Sanjay Goyal would pay the total amount of Rs. 16 lakhs and 75 thousand as a full and final permanent alimony including the stridhan etc. in favour of his wife including her minor daughter as her present and future maintenance. Out of this amount Rs. 6 lakhs would be paid at the time of first motion before District Court, Faridabad on or before 31.07.2018. The second instalment of Rs. 2 lakhs would be paid in the shape of FDR naming mother and her daughter at the time of filing petition u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before 31.07.2018. The third instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs and 75 thousand shall be paid to second party at the time of second motion to the respondent-wife before District Court, Faridabad and the last instalment of Rs. 3 lakhs in the shape of FDR at Post Office with mother as her guardian in the name of her minor daughter Gungun will be paid to the respondentwife at the time of second motion of divorce petition at District Court Faridabad. (The above settlement and convents are accepted by Shri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate, counsel for the opposite party no. 2.)
After paying the aforesaid amount both the parties are agreed to withdraw the civil as well as criminal cases against each other which includes the present proceeding, proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C., proceeding u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act etc. The settlement/agreement is annexed as annexure- 6 to the petition which forms part of this order.
Under the circumstances, there is matrimonial discord between the parties and the allegations levelled in the FIR is reflection of anger, frustration and revenge by the wife against her husband but at last a better sense has prevailed between them and they have decided to settle down the differences between them amicably therefore, there no useful purpose to keep the present criminal prosecution pending and alive. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by Shri Rajendra Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and has been jointly submitted that there
would be no harm and error rather it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
(vi) DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER (Crl. Appeal No. 1723/2017).
(vii) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS whereby the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court while extending the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding on the ground of compromise between the parties has laid down the following guidelines:-
"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. 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 hereinabove;
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 impart 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."
Relying upon the above guidelines in the present case undoubtedly the entire controversy between the contesting parties is an off shoot of a matrimonial discord between them whereby the frustrated wife has levelled all sorts of abhorring distasteful and imaginary allegations against her husband and all other family members related to husband by levelling a general allegation against all of them but at last a better sense between the parties to buried their differences and disputes for the interest of opposite party no. 2 and her baby Gungun.
Keeping in view the larger interest of the parties which is basically an unfortunate breakening of the matrimonial relationship, I find that the extra ordinary power vested in this Court, should be exercised and with the aid of counsel for for the contesting parties, I hereby quashed the proceeding.
The present 482 application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the proceeding of Case Crime No. 216 of 2015, u/s 232, 504, 506, 498-A, 376, 377 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Saidnagli, District Amroha and the summoning order dated 10.11.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) J.P. Nagar/Amroha on the basis of compromise dated 19.07.2018 before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, pending before the court of A.C.J.M. as Case No. 2988/2016 (State Vs. Sanjay and others) is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concern lower court with in a week.
Order Date :- 14.2.2019 Nisha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord based on a valid compromise between parties.
Whether the non-compoundable offences in the charge sheet which are private in nature and did not have a serious impact on society can be quashed on the ground of settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana And OthersReferred¶16
B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Dimpley Gujral And Others vs. Union Territory Through AdministratorReferred¶18
DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697 · Who else cites this
Narendra Singh And Others vs. State of Punjab And OthersReferred¶19
NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav And Others vs. State of JharkhandReferred¶20
YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Dparbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others vs. State of Gujarat And AnotherReferred¶21
DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER (Crl. Appeal No. 1723/2017)
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan And OthersReferred¶22
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Goyal And 4 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
