# Bhupendra & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1107 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-12 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhupendra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43977 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote 1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES G.A. PROCEDURE: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3237 of 2015 (State vs. Bhupendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, under Sections 498-A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, on the ground of compromise between the parties. Supplementary affidavit along with certified copies of compromise affidavit, orders of the court below and decree dated 11.04.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act were brought on record. CITATION: Gian Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 303 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 HEADNOTES: High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences such as Section 498-A I.P.C., where: The dispute is matrimonial in nature; The parties have amicably settled their disputes; The victim does not wish to prosecute the matter; The possibility of conviction is remote; Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court; Quashing would secure the ends of justice. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure justice in appropriate cases. RESULT: Application allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No. 3237 of 2015 (State vs. Bhupendra and others), under Sections 498A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, were quashed. ## Text 7 All. Bhupendra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. 1107 reasoning and result reached therein. Judicial discipline binds us to follow the aforementioned binding precedent. 24. Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 8068 of 2016 ( Mohd Junaid Ajaz and 2 other Versus Union of India and 3 others) in reference of constitution of these two Tribunals has held that in view of repeal of Act No. 27 of 2013 by the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015 (Act No. 19 of 2015), the Waqf Tribunals which were established at Lucknow and Rampur in pursuance of the amended provision of Section 83 would not cease to exist and would continue to function. Division Bench also considered the scope and ambit of Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015 and came to the conclusion that once provisions of amending legislature, Amended Act No. 27 of 2013 has been brought into force and amendment has been incorporated in the Act then subsequent repealing amended legislature would not affect that has already affected. 25. Once such is the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case is that the very authorisation by means of notification in question dated 07.11.1998 has been rescinded, then net effect of the same is that Civil Judge (Senior Division) would cease to function as one man Waqf Tribunal, then Multi Member Waqf Tribunals established at Lucknow and Rampur in pursuance of the amended provisions of Section 83, would deal with the subject matter and none of the vested right of the petitioner could be said to be infringed. 26. As far as issues for opening Waqf Tribunal at other places are concern, as requested by parties, such issues are left open to be decided in another Public Interest Litigation and to the domain of State Government. 27. With the above, present writ petition is dismissed. ------------ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 32275 Of 2015 Bhupendra & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, Jawahir Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: 1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES G.A. PROCEDURE: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3237 of 2015 (State vs. Bhupendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, under Sections 498-A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, on the ground of compromise between the parties. Supplementary affidavit along with certified copies of compromise affidavit, orders of the court below and decree dated 11.04.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act were brought on record. CITATION: Gian Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 303 B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 HEADNOTES: High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences such as Section 498-A I.P.C., where: The dispute is matrimonial in nature; The parties have amicably settled their disputes; The victim does not wish to prosecute the matter; The possibility of conviction is remote; Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court; Quashing would secure the ends of justice. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure justice in appropriate cases. RESULT: Application allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No. 3237 of 2015 (State vs. Bhupendra and others), under Sections 498A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007, were quashed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the parties have settled all their disputes by way of compromise. In proof of the said compromise learned counsel has filed certified copies of various orders passed by the court below and of the affidavit filed by both the parties in the lower court in compliance of the order dated 2.11.2015 of this Court. Learned counsel has also filed certified copy of the judgment and order dated 11.4.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad on the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7 All. Bhupendra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. 1109 3. Learned counsel has prayed that in wake of the compromise between the parties, the continuance of criminal proceedings is an exercise in futile and the same may be quashed. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. The statement of opposite party no. 2 recorded during trial and the affidavit filed by her before the court concerned shows that she has stated that she does not want to prosecute the criminal case any further and no dispute is remaining between her and the applicants. 6. Thus, clearly the parties have settled all their disputes and no claim is left between them. 7. However, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. being non compoundable, the matter cannot be settled by way of compromise. 8. In so far as the contention of learned A.G.A. regarding non compoundability of offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, in a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laiddown the guidelines and has directed the High Courts to exercise its inherent powers and to quash the criminal proceedings of the F.I.R. or the complaint in view of the compromise even in the cases related to non compoundable offences. 9. In (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303; Gian Singh Versus State of U.P., a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court has held as under:- "Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation......... .... However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such 1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed. 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 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 7 All. Bhupendra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. 1111 10. In (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675; B.S. Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another, in paragraphs 14 and 15 the Supreme Court has held as under: - "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 382 of the Code." 11. In (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582; Madan Mohan Abbot Versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 6 as under : - "6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 12. Hence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that in the interest of justice, even non compoundable cases which are settled between the parties, can be decided in terms of the settlement between the parties. 13. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have put to an end their all disputes by means of settlement, it does not appear just and proper to continue the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth, niece, sister and grand mother that too in a case where no injury has been caused to the victim. 14. In view of the above application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 3237 of 2015 ( State Vs. Bhupendra and others), under Sections 498-A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, district Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No. 505 of 2007 under Sections 498-A/323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, district Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. 1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 44300 Of 2015 Bhupendra Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Surendra Singh, Bhupendra Singh, D. Shukla Counsel for the Respondent: G.A., D. Shukla, S. Shukla Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 6.11.2014 and it is said that one Bhanu Prakash @ Monu Singh had taken the deceased Chandrika Prasad along with him but thereafter he never returned. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 6.11.2014 and it is said that one Bhanu Prakash @ Monu Singh had taken the deceased Chandrika Prasad along with him but thereafter he never returned. It is also alleged that on the next day, the dead body of the aforesaid deceased was discovered at about 8.00 O'clock in the morning. The allegation made against the applicant in the F.I.R. is that at about 10.00 P.M. on 6.11.2014, the deceased was seen along with the applicant and other co-accused Ram Awadh Singh, Bhanu