# Nitin Garg v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 593
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.43233 of 2017
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitin-garg-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48139
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law-Matrimonial dispute-no
allegation of dowry demand
-parties
settled the disputes amicably-mutually
divorced-other criminal cases which were
pending
are
disposed-parties
reached
settlement-chargesheet quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Nitin Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
593
applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2
and his wife before Judicial Magistrate,
Roorki and FIR was also lodged at Police
Station Gangnahar, Roorki. The trial court
situated at Roorki conducted the trial of
opposite party no.2 and his wife and
convicted them under Section 323/34 IPC
and further the appellate court, who
acquitted the opposite party no.2 and his
wife, was also not situated in District
Saharanpur,
therefore,
admittedly
the
alleged offences were committed in Roorki
and not in District Saharanpur. Now, the
question is whether cause of action of the
present
case
can
arise
in
District
Saharanpur or not.

24. Section 177 of The Code of
Criminal
Procedure
states
about
the
jurisdiction of the criminal courts in
inquiries and trials, which reproduced as
under:-

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry
and trial. Every offene shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed."

25. As per Section 177 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure an offence shall ordinarily
be inquired and tried by the court within whose
jurisdiction it was committed. As, I have
already observed that the alleged offences in
which applicants were summoned were
committed in District Roorki, therefore, as per
Section 177 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Court No.19, Saharanpur was not
having jurisdiction to try the same, as there is no
evidence on record, which can show that the act
done in Roorki was having any consequence
which has ensued in District Saharanpur,
therefore, no advantage of Section 179 Cr.P.C.
may be given to opposite party no.2.

26. Thus, in my considered view
ACJM-I,
Saharanpur
was
not
having
jurisdiction to try the present case.

27. Therefore, present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and impugned
complaint being Complaint No. 1317 of 2007
under Sections 500, 211, 120B IPC pending
in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Court No.19, Saharanpur and
summoning order dated 05.07.2007 are
hereby quashed
----------
(2022)02ILR A593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.43233 of 2017

Nitin Garg ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Varun Dev Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,Sri Tapan Kumar Mishra, Sri Sushil
Kumar Shukla

(A) Criminal Law-Matrimonial dispute-no
allegation of dowry demand
-parties
settled the disputes amicably-mutually
divorced-other criminal cases which were
pending
are
disposed-parties
reached
settlement-chargesheet quashed.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun. & anr., (2012) 10
SCC 303
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2.
Parbathbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. &
anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. Heard Sri Varun Dev Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tapan
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2, and Sri Manoj Kumar
Dwivedi learned A.G.A. for the State, and
perused the material on record.

2. The present application under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short "the Code") has been
filed for quashing the impugned chargesheet No. 43 of 2017 dated 18.10.2017
arising out of case crime no. 22 of 2017
under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC")
registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana,
District Meerut and stay the further
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5204 of
2017 (State v. Nitin Garg) pending in the
court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut.

3. First Information Report ("FIR")
has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2
as case Crime No. 22 of 2017 under
Sections 323, 506, 307, 354 of IPC on
2.5.2017 at Police Station- Mahila Thana,
District Meerut against the applicant aged
about 39 years (husband), Satish Chand
Gupta
(father-in-law)
and
Saurabh
(brother-in-law/Jeth).

4. Brief facts of the case are that First
Information Report dated 2.5.2017 by the
opp. party no. 2/victim stating therein that
the marriage of the victim was solemnized
with the applicant on 3.12.2003 according
to Hindu rites and rituals at Meerut and her
father spent more than his capacity. After
the marriage, the applicant used to commit
marpeet with her, after consuming excess
liquor but she tolerated the behaviour of her
husband for the future of her son and
complained to her brother-in-law (Jeth) and
father-in-law. On such a complaint, her
father-in-law stated that the applicant is not
physically fit. Prior to two years of lodging
the FIR, father-in-law of the victim entered
her room started molesting her and
attempted to commit rape with her. After
this incident, the victim left this house and
shifted to another house of the applicant.
On 25.4.2017, co-accused Saurabh came
and caught hold of her forcibly and
attempted to commit rape. Anyhow she
escaped herself. On her information, her
father came on 29.4.2017 from Darjeeling
and they threatened to dissolve the
marriage after taking Rs. 2 crores otherwise
she would not be left alive. Earlier, her
husband two times attempted to commit
murder by strangulation of her neck.

5. After completing the investigation,
on 18.10.2017, a charge-sheet has been
submitted in the aforesaid case against the
applicant under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
of
IPC
and
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut took cognizance on
7.11.2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant as
well as learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2
have jointly submitted that the parties have
settled their matrimonial dispute before
Supreme
Court
Mediation
Centre
on
16.11.2018 wherein the opposite party no. 2
has expressed her opinion that she does not
wish to pursue the present case any further.
Copy of aforesaid settlement has been annexed
as Annexure SA.- 1 to the Supplementary
Affidavit. Both the parties have agreed in the
2 All. Nitin Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
595
aforesaid settlement that they will make joint
request before the Court to dispose of/quash
the following cases:

(a) HMA No. 1950 of 2016 pending
before the Family Court, Meerut (Nitin Garg
v. Navita Garg)

(b) Case arising out of CR No. 22 of
217 pending before CJM, Meerut (Mahila
Thana)

(c) Complaint case No. 48 of 2018
pending before the CJM, Kalimpong.

(d) Case arising out of GR Case No.
297 of 2017 from FIR No. 231 of 2017
pending before CJM, Kalimpong.

7. Learned counsel for both the parties
further submitted that in pursuance of
aforesaid settlement, out of four cases, three
cases have been disposed of. The relevant
copies of the orders have been filed as
Annexure SA-2, SA-3, and SA-4 to the
Supplementary Affidavit. Both the parties
have agreed, voluntarily and of their own free
will to settle their matrimonial dispute on the
terms and conditions mentioned in the
settlement dated 16.11.2018, and a decree
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 has been passed between the parties
on 20.2.2021 by the Principal Family Court,
Meerut.

8. The fact of settlement has been
confirmed and admitted by learned
counsel for both the parties and they have
jointly submitted that in the interest of
justice the proceedings of the criminal
case be quashed in the light of the
aforesaid settlement. It is relevant to
mention here that the opp. party no. 2 has
admitted the fact of settlement in her
affidavits which have been filed in
support of urgency application, moved
for early disposal of the present case.

9. To appreciate the submission of
the applicant it will be worthwhile to
refer some decision of the Supreme Court
with regard to scope and power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code.

10. A three-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court, after considering the
reference,
whether
non-compoundable
offence be permitted to be compounded by
the court directly or indirectly, in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012)
10 SCC 303, has observed as under: (SCC,
p. 340-41, para 56, 57 & 58)

"56. It needs no emphasis that
exercise of inherent power by the High
Court would entirely depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case. It is
neither permissible nor proper for the court
to provide a straitjacket formula regulating
the exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482. No precise and inflexible
guidelines can also be provided.

57. Quashing of offence or
criminal proceedings on the ground of
settlement between an offender and victim
is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the
power of compounding of offences given to
a court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding
of offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions contained
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Section 320 and the court is guided
solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the
High Court for quashing a criminal offence
or
criminal
proceeding
or
criminal
complaint is guided by the material on
record as to whether the ends of justice
would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

58. Where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between
the offender and the victim has been
settled although the 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
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the 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, yet certain
crimes have been made compoundable in
law, with or without the permission of the
court. In respect of serious offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special
statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity,
the settlement between the offender and
the victim can have no legal sanction at
all. 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 the victim and the offender
and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is hardly
any likelihood of the 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."

11. In Parbathbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur &
Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2017) 9
SCC 641, (3 Judge) after referring the
various judgments of the Supreme Court
summarized the broad principles relating to
the scope of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p.
653, para 16)

"16. The broad principles which
emerges from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.
2 All. Nitin Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
597

16.2. The invocation of the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
first information report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent poser of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether
a complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family or
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7.
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

16.8. Criminal Cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding if
in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would case oppression and
prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8. and
16.9. above. Economic offence involving
the financial and economic well-being of
the State have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
act complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

12. Thus, it is a settled position of law
that when the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,
the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to
form an opinion on either of the aforesaid
two objectives. Such a power is not to be
exercised in heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

13. The instant case, as the allegations
made in the FIR as well as the settlement
would demonstrate, there is a matrimonial
dispute between the parties; there is no
allegation with regard to demand of dowry;
both
the
parties
have
settled
their
matrimonial disputes amicably before the
Supreme Court Medication Centre; both the
parties mutually divorced under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
20.2.2021 and other criminal cases which
were pending between the parties are also
disposed of in pursuance of the settlement
dated 16.11.2018.

14. In view of the above facts
including the settlement between the
parties, and keeping in mind the position of
law, I am of the considered opinion that
cognizance order dated 7.11.2017 is liable
to be quashed.

15. In conclusion, charge-sheet No.
43 of 2017 dated 18.10.2017 as well as
cognizance order dated 7.11.2017 passed
by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 5204 of 2017
(arising out of Case Crime no. 22 of 2017
under sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC
registered at Police Station - Mahila Thana,
District Meerut), pending for trial in the
court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut is, hereby, quashed. The present
application stands allowed accordingly.

16. A copy of this order be
transmitted
to
the
trial
court
for
information.
----------
(2022)02ILR A598
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2017
with
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2017
with
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2017

Kareem ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Counsel, Sri
Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Ms. Ankita Verma, Sri
A. Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Pankaj Bharti

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 302/34
& 506-challenge to-conviction-evidence of
eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 unreliable
being interested witness -PW-1 stated in
his cross-examination that he heard the
sound of two shots and there was no
blood on the spot-no source of light has