Allowed

Pawan Kumar Gautam and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/4441/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The court relied on the Supreme Court's precedents and a settlement agreement documented by the Court's Mediation Centre to determine that the proceedings would cause unnecessary oppression.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case Crime No.23 of 2017 vide Case No. 1098 of 2018 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

Pawan Kumar Gautam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70803

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4441 of 2018

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Gautam And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.N. Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar,Tej Narain Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶7

Case called out.

¶8

None appears on behalf of the respondents though name is shown in the cause list.

¶9

Heard Sri Kuldeep Dubey holding brief of Sri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A.and perused the record.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.23 of 2017 vide Case No. 1098 of 2018 under Sections 498A,323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Chinhat, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶11

In terms of the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by this Court, both the parties had appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court and the mediation has completed through settlement dated 09.10.2018. The said report has also been placed on record and the same has been perused by this Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of compromise/settlement agreement, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶13

After perusing the report of the Mediation Centre of

¶14

this Court, it is evident that opposite party no.2 has settled the dispute and also stated that the applicants may not be prosecuted in a criminal case.

¶15

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

¶16

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another ( 2003) 4 SCC 675;

¶17

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677;

¶18

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1;

¶19

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303;

¶20

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; and

¶21

State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296.

¶22

In the aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Supreme Court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.

¶23

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:-

¶24

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;

¶25

16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶26

16.2. 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.

¶27

16.3. 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;

¶28

16.4. 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;

¶29

16.5. 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;

¶30

16.6. 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;

¶31

16.7. 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;

¶32

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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;

¶33

16.9. 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

¶34

continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶35

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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 the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶36

Considering the fact that compromise/settlement agreement between the parties has been entered into, which is on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings any more in the above mentioned case.

¶37

Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.23 of 2017 vide Case No. 1098 of 2018 under Sections 498A,323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Chinhat, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶38

¶39

(Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶40

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 dk/

¶41

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

Pawan Kumar Gautam and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Gautam and 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdin and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shri Nikant Jain and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Kunti Prajapati and Ors. Vs Smt. Nootan Prajapati @ Roshni @ Taaniya and Anr.