Allowed

Mintu @ Sushant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022A482/6112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant. The court invoked S. 482 CrPC in exercise of inherent powers, relying on the principle that private matrimonial disputes resolved by compromise warrant quashing, provided the case does not involve heinous offences against society.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 25.10.2021 and Charge-Sheet No.297 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2021.

Mintu @ Sushant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6112 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mintu @ Sushant And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- U.C. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for parties submits that parties have entered into compromise and prayed that the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.10.2021, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Muzaffar Nagar as well as the Charge-Sheet No.297 of 2021, dated 25.9.2021 bearing case no.20169 of 2021 (State Vs. Mintu @ Sushant And Others) arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. 1st, Muzaffar Nagar may be quashed.

¶6

Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :-

¶7

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others:(2019)5 SCC 688 and, after considering earlier judgments 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 :(2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar:(2019) 5 SCC 570,clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-

¶8

"15 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:

¶9

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to

¶10

quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320of 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;

¶11

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;

¶12

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;

¶13

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;

¶14

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to

¶15

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." (Emphasis supplied)

¶16

Considering that the parties have entered into compromise in view of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan (supra), entire proceedings of Case No.20169 of 2021 (State Vs. Mintu @ Sushant And Others) arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffar Nagar, are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

¶17

Learned counsel for parties on instruction agreed that parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- within one week by way of Draft in favour of State Legal Services Authority.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 SB

¶19

(Serial No.5 out of 512 fresh cases)

¶20

Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.09.26 09:55:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mintu @ Sushant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu @ Sushant and 3 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

Raj Kumar Bhola Vs Smt. Lalita Bhola

Swati Devi Vs Sohit Yadav

Satya Deo Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Akash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another