# Parveen Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1025
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11344 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ali Zamin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parveen-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45907
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 482- Indian Penal Code-
Section
320-
Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings on basis of compromise - NonCompoundable
offences
-
Matrimonial
dispute - Offence under section 498A IPC is
non-compoundable - Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that High Court in exercise of its
inherent
power
can
quash
criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and section
320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code 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
predominatingly 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.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High
Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the
event of the parties arriving at a compromise
even in non-compoundable offences, provided
the offences are not heinous or grave and are
either matrimonial or civil disputes in nature and
the possibility of the court securing the
conviction of the accused as a result of
compromise is remote or impossible.

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.

Criminal Application allowed. (Para 22, 23) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

## Text

9 All. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1025
v. Sarwan Singh (supra), therefore, no
useful
purpose
will
be
served
by
prolonging the proceeding of the above
mentioned complaint case and to secure
ends of justice, it is a fit case to quash the
entire proceeding of complaint case by
invoking the power provided u/s 482
Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in the
aforesaid case are, hereby, quashed and the
application is allowed.

15. A copy of this order be
transmitted
to
the
lower
court
for
compliance.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1025
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11344 of 2020

Parveen Kumar & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Avinash Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 482- Indian Penal Code-
Section
320-
Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings on basis of compromise - NonCompoundable
offences
-
Matrimonial
dispute - Offence under section 498A IPC is
non-compoundable - Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that High Court in exercise of its
inherent
power
can
quash
criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and section
320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code 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
predominatingly 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.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High
Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the
event of the parties arriving at a compromise
even in non-compoundable offences, provided
the offences are not heinous or grave and are
either matrimonial or civil disputes in nature and
the possibility of the court securing the
conviction of the accused as a result of
compromise is remote or impossible.

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.

Criminal Application allowed. (Para 22, 23) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. B.S.Joshi Vs St. of Har., 2003 (4) SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs C. B.I & anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr, (2012) 10
SCC 303,
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jhar., (2014)
9 SCC 653 and

5. Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs St. of Punj. & anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466

6.
St.
of
Kar.
Vs
L.Muniswamy
&
Ors.,MANU/SC/0143/1977: 1977 CriLJ 1125

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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 Haryaya,
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
9 All. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1027
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 D-zire 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 averred that she does
not want to prosecute the present case
against the applicants and wants to decide
the
present
case
on
the
basis
of
compromise.

9. In view of the affidavit filed by
opposite party no.2, Aruna Rani, there is no
reason to doubt about the settlement
between the parties and living of opposite
party no. 2 happily without any compliant
in her matrimonial house along with the
applicants.

10. Offence under section 498A IPC
is
non-compoundable.
Therefore,
the
considerable question in the instant case is
whether the complaint can be quashed
under section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of
compromise entered into between the
parties.

11. To decide the question in the
instant case it will be appropriate to refer
the following cases decided by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in which ambit and power
of High Court to quash the FIR, complaint
or proceeding of criminal case has been
considered.

12. In case of B.S. Joshi (supra),
appellant
no.4
was
the
husband
of
respondent no.2. Their marriage took place
on 21.07.1999 and they were living
separately since 15.07.2000. Appellant
nos.1 to 3 were father, mother and younger
brother of appellant no.4. FIR No.8 of
2002 was registered under section 498A
and 406 IPC at Police Station, Central
Faridabad at the instance of the wife on
02.01.2002. Thereafter she had filed an
affidavit that the FIR was registered at her
instance due to temperamental differences
and implied imputations. According to the
affidavit, her disputes with the appellants
were finally settled and she and appellant
no.4 had agreed for mutual divorce.

13. Appellants filed petition before
the High Court for quashing of FIR . High
Court dismissed the petition in view of the
offences under section 498A and 406 IPC
are not compoundable and inherent power
under section 482 IPC of the Code cannot
be invoked to bypass the mandatory
provision of section 320 of the Code.

14. The question for consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
regarding the ambit of the inherent powers
of the High Court under section 482 of the
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Criminal Procedure read with
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India to quash the criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint. It was considered that when
such matters are resolved either by wife
agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or
mutual separation of husband and wife and
also mutual settlement of other pending
disputes as a result whereof both sides
approached the High Court and jointly pray
for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the
FIR or complaint filed by wife under sections
498A and 406 IPC, can the prayer be declined
on the ground that since the offences are noncompoundable under section 320 of the Code
and, therefore, it is not permissible for the
Court to quash the criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint.

15.

Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
considering the finding of its own Court in
State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and
Ors.,MANU/SC/0143/1977: 1977 CriLJ
1125 that in the exercise of this wholesome
power, the High Court is entitled to quash
proceedings if it comes to the conclusion
that ends of justice so required. It was also
observed that in a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the
like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceedings in the interest of
justice and the ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice
had got to be administered according to
laws
made
by
the
legislature.
The
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper
realization of the object and purpose of the
provision which seeks to save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice
between the State and its subjects, it would
be impossible to appreciate the width and
contours of that salient jurisdiction.

16.

Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
considered that what would happen to trial
of the case where the wife does not support
the imputations made in the FIR of the type
in question. She has filed an affidavit that
FIR was registered at her instance due to
temperamental differences and implied
imputations. There may be many reasons
for not supporting the imputations. It may
be, either for the reason that she has
resolved disputes with her husband and his
other family members and as a result
thereof she has again started living with her
husband with whom she earlier had
differences or she has willingly parted
company and is living happily on her own
or has married someone else on earlier
marriage
having
been
dissolved
by
divorced on consent of parties or fails to
support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there
would almost be no chance of conviction.
Would then be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it
would
be
permitting
the
parties
to
compound non-compoundable offences.
Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It
would, however, be a different matter if the
High Court on facts declines the prayer for
quashing for any valid reasons including
lack of bona fides.

17. On over all considerations
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High
Court in exercise of its inherent power can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint and section 320 of the Code does
not limit or affect the powers under Section
482 of the Code.

18. In Nikhil Merchant (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"29. Despite the ingredients and
the factual content of an offence of cheating
9 All. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1029
punishable under Section 420 IPC, the
same has been made compoundable under
sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. with
the leave of the court. Of course, forgery
has not been included as one of the
compoundable offences, but it is in such
cases that the principle enunciated in
B.S.Joshi (supra) case becomes relevant."

19. In Gian Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
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. The criminal cases
having
overwhelmingly
and
predominatingly
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, the 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 the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding.

20. In Yogendra Yadav (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
High
Court
can
quash
a
criminal
proceeding in exercise of its power under
section 482 of the Code having regard to
the fact that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and the victim has no
objection, even though the offences are
non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to
quash the proceedings will depend on facts
and circumstances of each case. However,
when the High Court is convinced that the
offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or
tranquillity and where it feels that quashing
of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not
hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution.
Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be
waste of time and energy. That will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace.

21. In the case of Narinder Singh
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid
down the principle for quashing of
cases that power conferred under section
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
482 of the Code is to be distinguished from
the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under section 320
of the Code. No doubt, under section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent
power to quash the criminal proceedings
even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution. 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.
Those
criminal
cases
having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil
character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.

22. From the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred cases 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 predominatingly 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.

23. 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,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, to secure the
ends of justice between the parties it is
expedient and a fit case to quash the
proceeding of the complaint case by
invoking the power provided under section
482 Cr.P.C..

24.

Accordingly,
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
is
hereby
quashed.
9 All. Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1031
25.
Accordingly,
the
application
is
allowed.

26. Registry is directed to inform the
trial court for compliance of order.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1031
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN

Application U/S 482 No. 11813 of 2020

Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants
Sri Anjani Kumar Rai, Sri Ashok Kumar Rai,
Sri Mangala Prasad Rai.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,Sri Dhiraj Singh.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings
on
basis
of
compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section
320- Non-Compoundable offences -Civil
dispute - The offences imputed under
Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not
compoundable-It is well settled that even
the offences which are not compoundable
can be quashed by exercising inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While
exercising such power High Court has to
consider whether offences are arising out
of family dispute where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and
the parties have resolved their entire
dispute, if it is so, then High Court may
quash the criminal proceedings if in its
view, on account of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the 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 despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with
the victim.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its
inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High
Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the
event of the parties arriving at a compromise
even in non-compoundable offences, provided
the offences are not heinous or grave and are
either matrimonial or civil disputes in nature and
the possibility of the court securing the
conviction of the accused as a result of
compromise is remote or impossible.

Since, the instant case has arisen out of family
dispute
and
parties
have
arrived
at
a
compromise, the wrong is of private and
personal nature, have not impact on the society.
In such circumstance, to let the proceeding
continuing before the trial court will be nothing
but a futile exercise.

Criminal Application allowed. (Para 11, 12)
(E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors., (2003)
4 SCC 675

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. ( 2012) 10
SCC 303

3. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jhar. & ors.
(2014) 9 SCC 653

4. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J.)

1. Sri Dhiraj Singh, Advocate has
filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party no.2. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as