Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ali Zamin, J.
Parveen Kumar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 11344 of 2020
Decided On : 19-06-2020
Criminal Procedure Code - section 482 – Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Trial court – Demand of dowry - Learned A.G.A. fairly submits that since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint case will be nothing but only abuse of process of the court - Learned counsel for the opposite-party no. 2 submits that on accruing some disputes between the parties the opposite party no. 2 had filed the complaint but the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties and now she is living happily with the applicants, therefore, she does not want to prosecute the case against the applicants and wants that the matter may be decided on the basis of compromise –
Frinding of the court :
It is well settled that even the offences which are non-compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. but while exercising such power the High Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. FIR, complaint or the criminal case having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour, arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and entire dispute has been resolved between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak in such case the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such prosecution would be wastage of time and energy as well as it will unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace, and continuation of 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 and the High Court is convinced that quashing of such proceeding on account of compromise would bring peace and would secure ends of justice it should not hesitate to quash them - In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, there is unpropitious chance of conviction in the instant case. In such a situation it will be ineffective prosecution and continuing the criminal proceeding before the court below will be nothing but a dawdle and an otiose exercise only. Since parties have decided to live happily together and if the criminal proceeding is not quashed then it will unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace between the parties, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases –
Result :Appeal allowed
ORDER :
Ali Zamin, J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
3. On the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 205/9 of 2015 (Aruna Rani Vs. Parveen Kumar & others), under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of some disputes, opposite party no. 2 had filed the Complaint Case in which applicants were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 25.06.2015. Thereafter, applicants moved an Application No. 25403 of 2017 under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and obtained bail from the trial court on the basis of order dated 16.08.2017 passed on the application by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Now the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Opposite party no. 2 is living with the applicants, therefore, this application has been moved for quashing the complaint. In support of the application opposite party no. 2, Smt. Aruna Rani herself has filed affidavit and in para 9 of the affidavit it has been specifically stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and she is living in her matrimonial house without any complaint. Since parties have settled their dispute, therefore, learned counsel relying upon the cases of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), (2008) 9 SCC 677, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Yogendra Yadav and others vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Narinder Singh And Others vs. State of Punjab And Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, prays that the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case no. 205/9 of 2015 may be quashed.
5. Learned A.G.A. fairly submits that since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint case will be nothing but only abuse of process of the court.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite-party no. 2 submits that on accruing some disputes between the parties the opposite party no. 2 had filed the complaint but the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties and now she is living happily with the applicants, therefore, she does not want to prosecute the case against the applicants and wants that the matter may be decided on the basis of compromise.
7. A perusal of the record, would show that at the instance of opposite party no. 2 the complaint case was filed that on 04.08.2006 opposite party no. 2 married Praveen Kumar, applicant no. 1. After marriage the applicants started demanding Swift Dzire Car in additional demand of dowry and on showing inability by the opposite party no. 2 they started harassing her, physically and mentally. On 01.03.2014 applicants by abusing kicked her out from the house. Thereafter, on 10.05.2015 at about 11.00 hour of the day, applicants came to her parental house and again they abused and beat her by 'Lathi Danda'. In the complaint applicants were summoned by the Court below for trial under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act vide its order dated 25.06.2015.
8. According to the applicants, now the matter has been settled between the parties and opposite party no. 2 is living in her matrimonial house happily without any complaint. Along with the application an affidavit has been filed of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Aruna Rani. Apart from above affidavit, a short counter affidavit also has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Aruna Rani and in Para 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
