Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 774
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Abdul Majid Khan And 3 Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another – Respondent
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 42619 of 2023 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Kamal Krishna Roy and Prabal Pratap
Respondent: G.A.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled their dispute amicably, and no serious offences are made out.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of non-bailable warrant and criminal proceedings - The court quashed the non-bailable warrant and entire proceedings of a criminal case arising from matrimonial discord, as the parties had amicably settled their dispute and the compromise was verified by the court below. (Paras 6, 11)
(B) Inherent powers of High Court - The High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power to compound offences, and should be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, particularly in cases with a civil character. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Nature of offences - The court emphasized that heinous offences cannot be quashed merely due to a compromise, but offences of a personal nature, such as those arising from matrimonial disputes, may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, husband and wife, faced proceedings under various IPC sections due to matrimonial discord. They reached an amicable settlement, which was verified by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no serious offences against the applicants and determined that continuing the proceedings would be unjust.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compromise justified quashing the proceedings and the nature of the offences involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the compromise between the parties, verified by the court, warranted quashing the proceedings, as the offences were not serious and were of a personal nature.
Result: The application is allowed.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Prabal Pratap, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the non bailable warrant dated 04.12.2019 as well as order dated 14.09.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 996 of 2019 (State vs. Abdul Majid Khan & others) arising out of case crime no. 0479 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District Badaun.
3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are that applicant no. 1 is husband of opposite party no. 2 and matrimonial discord between them has culminated into present proceedings which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that during the pendency of the impugned proceedings, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a written compromise has also been entered into between them. He has further submitted that this Court vide order dated 30.11.2023 directed the court below to verify the said compromise and submit its report to this Court.
5. From the perusal of record, it appears that in pursuance of order dated 30.11.2023 of this Court, the court below has submitted its report dated 16.01.2024 mentioning therein that compromise has been verified.
6. As the parties have settled their dispute amicably which was purely matrimonial in nature and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the court below in pursuance of direction of this Court, in such circumstances, permitting to continue the impugned proceeding will amount to travesty of justice.
7. 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 cont
