Allahabad High Court
Madhu Shivhare And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63379 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21277 of 2024 Applicant :- Madhu Shivhare And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. And Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22437 of 2024 Applicant :- Ghanshyam Shivhare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Dwivedi,Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajeev Kumar Sonkar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Special CJM, Agra in Case No.14109 of 2022 (State v. Ghanshyam Shivhare & others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising out of Crime No.0084 of 2022, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra, as well as quashing the Chargesheet No.160 of 2022 dated 10.10.2022 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No.14109 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra pending in the Court of ACJM, Court No.5, District Agra.
3. The fact, giving rise to the present case, is that a matrimonial discord between applicant No.3 and opposite party No.2 has culminated into the impugned proceeding.
4. From the perusal of the record, it appears that this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2024.
5. In pursuance of the order of this Court, parties have also participated in mediation proceedings which resulted in the successful mediation between the parties and his settlement agreement dated 27.11.2024 has also been entered into between the parties. The paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement is being quoted as under:-
“7. In view of the Interim Settlement Agreement dated 06.11.2024, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That both the parties have agreed to live separately and dissolve their marriage and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra and the same is registered as Divorce Petition No. 3090 of 2024. The parties shall produce certified copy of the aforesaid divorce petition before the Hon’ble High Court at the time of hearing.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that Krishnakant Shivhare (Applicant No. 3-Husband) shall pay an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh only) to Smt. Rinki Gupta (O.P. No. 2-Wife) which includes permanent alimony, Stridhan and maintenance of aforesaid son namely, Saksham that may accrue against the applicant no. 3-husband and his family members. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by way of demand drafts.
c) That on 06.11.2024, the applicant no. 3-husband has produced a demand draft bearing no. 169138 dated 04.11.2024 drawn on Central Bank of India for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) in favour of Rinky Gupta (wife) which is kept on record and the same has been handed over to the wife today i.e. 27.11.2024 and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d) That today i.e. 27.11.2024 the applicant no. 3-husband has handed over another demand draft bearing no. 169145 dated 25.11.2024 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of Rinky Gupta (wife) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
e) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) shall be paid by Krishnakant Shivhare (Applicant No. 3-Husband) to Smt. Rinki Gupta (O.P. No. 2-Wife) at the time of final judgment/second motion in Divorce Petition No. 3090 of 2024 pending in Family Court, Agra by way of demand draft.
f) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all civil and criminal cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.
g) That the parties will not file any fresh case against each other in respect of this matrimonial dispute. They have no claim against each other in future also.
h) That this settlement had been read over and explained to the parties in Hindi in presence of their respective counsels, thereafter, they have signed the settlement.”
6. As per the settlement agreement, both the parties have agreed to live separately and dissolve their marriage and also decided to withdraw the cases filed against each other.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in pursuance of above settlement agreement dated 27.11.2024, applicant no.3 has also paid Rs.20,00,000/- lacs and remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of quashing the petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A.
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-
“15.1. 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;
15.2. 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;
15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the 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.
15.4. 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/delicate 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 paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;”
11. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.
12. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out. Now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below. Therefore, continuation of impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
13. In view of the above as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding of Case No.14109 of 2022 (State v. Ghanshyam Shivhare & others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, arising out of Crime No.0084 of 2022, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra, as well as quashing the Chargesheet No.160 of 2022 dated 10.10.2022 and entire criminal proceeding of Case No.14109 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra pending in the Court of ACJM, Court No.5, District Agra, is hereby quashed.
14. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
A.N. Mishra
[ad_1]
Source link