Sageeta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18847 of 2023

Applicant :- Sageeta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shankar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avaneendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Avaneendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of cognizace order dated 17.10.2022 and charge-sheet dated 12.09.2022 as well as Criminal Case No. NIL of 2022 (State Vs. Sageeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0349 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12932 of 2022, the matter was referred to the medication and conciliation centre of this Court and both the parties have appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court and the parties vide agreement dated 21.03.2023 have settled their dispute stating therein that all the disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties through the process of conciliation/Mediation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in he case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another [2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 848] wherein the Apex Court has held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

¶10

State and Sri Avaneendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that it is true that in between the parties compromise have been entered into and also admits that the opposite party no. 2 now does not want to pursue the cases pending in some other Courts in terms of the compromise aforesaid.

¶12

Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Apex Court in para nos. 10, 11, 12, 13,14 and 15 has held as under:

¶13

"10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 699], considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was ob served that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.

¶14

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1988) 1 SCC 692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular

¶15

case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

¶16

12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

¶17

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

¶18

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties and taking into account the compromise entered into between the parties and also considering the observations of the Apex Court, this Court finds that the High Court has ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court.

¶21

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The proceedings of cognizace order dated 17.10.2022 and chargesheet dated 12.09.2022 as well as Criminal Case No. NIL of 2022 (State Vs. Sageeta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0349 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor are set aside.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.6.2023 Prajapati

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sageeta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sageeta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sheikh Jilani Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bholu @ Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others