Allowed

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2022A482/19977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 application, the Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act where the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench held that private matrimonial disputes resolved by compromise justify quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceedings including the charge-sheet and summoning order in Case No.97/2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19977 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi Shanker @ Rauki And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.97/2021 (State Vs. Ravi Shankar @ Rauki & Others), case crime no.151 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, including charge-sheet dated 22.06.2020 as well as congnizance order dated 10.12.2020, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Agra in the aforesaid case, which is presently pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is husband of the opposite party no.2/complainant and that other applicants are family members of applicant no.1. It was stated that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. In pursuance to order of this Court, the said compromise has already been verified by the trial Court, the certified copy of same has been filed along with supplementary affidavit. It was submitted that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and that both the parties have compromised the matter thus, the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and that now the complainant does not want to pursue the said case and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed, as exhausting the proceedings of trial, would be a sheer wastage of time of the court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶10

So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others , decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its eralier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:

¶11

"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:

¶12

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;

¶13

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;

¶14

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;

¶15

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;

¶16

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."

¶17

Keeping in view of aforesaid position of law, the instant matter it may be observed that the case pertains to matrimonial dispute between husband and wife. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter. The complainant does not want to proceed with the said case. The dispute between the parties is private in nature and it would not have any serious impact on society, if parties compromise the matter.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, the impugned proceedings including the charge-sheet and the impugned summoning order of Case No.97/2021 (State Vs. Ravi Shankar @ Rauki & Others), case crime no.151 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶19

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.18 16:19:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallo and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Omkar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Rahman Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zuilfikar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishan Gopal Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another