Allowed

Mohd. Shakil and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024/1467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order arising from a domestic incident as offences under sections 498-A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, noting that the dispute involved a private element and the parties had executed a verified compromise deed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5687 of 2015 arising out of Crime No. 459 of 2013, including the charge-sheet and summoning order, pending before Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow are hereby

Mohd. Shakil and Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32564

¶3

Court No. - 27

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1467 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd. Shakil And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Yadav,Vibhantika Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for applicants as well as Sri Upendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Hari Shanker Bajpai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2015 issued by the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 5687 of 2015: State Vs. Mohd. Shakil and others as well as impugned charge-sheet No. 60/2015 dated 05.05.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5687 of 2015 arising out of Crime No. 459 of 2013, under Section 498-A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow.

¶8

Sri Upendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that his client is not interested to pursue any further and he has no objection if the proceedings of the present case be quashed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court the applicants filed compromise deed before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Second, Lucknow and the concerned court vide its order dated 07.03.2024 verified the said compromise in the presence of the applicants and opposite party no.2, copy of which is available on record.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the parties have entered into compromise, which has also been verified by the court below, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the parties has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.

¶13

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675. (ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303.

¶14

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697.

¶15

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014

¶16

(6) SCC 466.

¶17

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.

¶18

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

¶19

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶20

ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶21

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶22

¶23

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

¶24

v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶25

vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

¶26

vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶27

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶28

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶29

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of

¶30

¶31

the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶32

The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

¶33

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶34

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly is private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶35

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and in view of the compromise made by the applicants as well as opposite party no.2 and the observation made above, the entire proceedings of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5687 of 2015 arising out of Crime No. 459 of 2013, under Section 498-A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow is hereby quashed.

¶36

¶37

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶38

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶39

Order Date :- 25.04.2024 Arvind

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shakil and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shakil and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kripal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Khushabu Thru. Her Husband Dipak Kumar @ Gulsan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Susheela Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Gurudev Alias Sukai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sita Pati Baghi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Nandni Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another