Devendra Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:127716

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16242 of 2024

Applicant :- Devendra Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 18.06.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.07.2022, of criminal case no. 4223/2022 (State Vs. Devendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152/2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Swar, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2/victim and applicant nos.2 to 6 are family members of applicant no.1. It was submitted that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned case. It was further submitted that the compromise filed by the parties before the trial has already been verified by the court concerned, copy of which is on record. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the

¶10

basis of compromise.

¶11

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

¶12

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 earlier 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 [Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019] and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 vide Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:

¶13

"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:

¶14

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;

¶15

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;

¶16

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;

¶17

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

¶18

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;

¶19

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."

¶20

Thus, it is apparent that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between that parties. In the instant case, it appears that the matter relates to matrimonial dispute which is private in nature and if parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The informant does not want to proceed with the case against the applicants. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering the above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings of the case in question be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned chargesheet/cognizance order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed .

¶21

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 SP/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases