Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Pramod and Another – Applicants
Versus
The State Of UP and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 12174 of 2020
Decided On : 23-02-2021
The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and conviction order against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in a case where the husband and wife had settled their disputes and were living together happily after arriving at a compromise. The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments holding that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, even in cases of non-compoundable offenses, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. The court noted that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A in the IPC was to prevent torture of women by their husbands or relatives and that a hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and act against the interests of women. The court also considered the fact that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship and that the parties had resolved their differences amicably. The court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and that justice demanded that the dispute be put to an end and peace restored.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, a husband and wife, were convicted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. They filed an appeal against the conviction and during the pendency of the appeal, they settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise. They filed an application before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the conviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings and the conviction order. The court held that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A in the IPC was to prevent torture of women by their husbands or relatives and that a hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and act against the interests of women. The court also considered the fact that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship and that the parties had resolved their differences amicably. The court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and that justice demanded that the dispute be put to an end and peace restored.
Issues: Whether the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, even in cases of non-compoundable offenses, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on various Supreme Court judgments holding that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, even in cases of non-compoundable offenses, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. The court noted that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A in the IPC was to prevent torture of women by their husbands or relatives and that a hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and act against the interests of women. The court also considered the fact that the dispute arose out of a matrimonial relationship and that the parties had resolved their differences amicably. The court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and that justice demanded that the dispute be put to an end and peace restored.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings and the conviction order.
JUDGMENT :
1. Brief facts giving rise to the questions involved in this case, are that a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant no.1, Pramod and two others, which was registered as Case Crime No. 93/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (fort short “D.P. Act”), Police Thana, District Ghaziabad. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and two others co-accused namely Lalit and Rinku, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, on the basis of which, charges were framed under the aforesaid sections. On the basis of the statements of opposite party no. 2, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad vide order dated 02.12.2017 convicted the applicants under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.12.2017, the applicants filed Criminal Appeal No. 164/2017 (Pramod and another vs. State of U.P., assailing the judgment and order dated 02.12.2017, the applicants have been released on bail in criminal appeal.
3. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the parties have entered into compromise and they decided to live happily as husband and wife under one roof with their minor son Shiva, aged about 18 years. Since arriving at a compromise between the parties, they are residing under one roof as husband and wife alongwith their minor son, the applicants filed an application before the Appellate Court, alleging therein, that criminal proceeding against them may be quashed, as the continuation of criminal proceeding against them would be abuse of process of the law.
4. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
5. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding in Case Crime No. 93/2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad and consequential conviction order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 10/2013, “State vs. Pramod” as well as the proceeding in Criminal Appeal No. 164/2017, “Pramod and another vs. State of U.P.”, pending in the Court of District and Session Judge, Ghaziabad in terms of the compromise arrived at between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
6. On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 is the husband and applicant no.2 is mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of applicant no. 1. Without disputing the facts of the case, counsel for the applicants submits that during the pendency of appeal, compromise has been arrived at between the parties, therefore, criminal proceeding against the applicants may be quashed in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties.
7. A joint affidavit has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants which is part of the record. On the basis of joint affidavit, the Court on 07.09.2020 passed the following order :
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 93 of 2012, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad and the consequential conviction order dated 2.12.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 10/2013 (State vs. Pramod and another) as well as the proceeding in Criminal App
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
