# Ram Pravesh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.650 of 2022
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pravesh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48663
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 -Section 173, 482 -
Indian Panel Code, 1860 -Section 323,
498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section 3/4: - Cognizance of Charge sheet
& continuation of criminal proceeding in a
matrimonial dispute - be quashed when
the parties (husband & wife) have resolved
their entire dispute through a duly verified
compromise - to avoid abuse of process of
law
-
Application
allowed
-
entire
proceeding are hereby quashed. (Para - 14,
15)

Application (U/s 482) is allowed. (E-11)
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited: -

## Text

6 All. Ram Pravesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
321

19. So far as the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondents is
concerned that the appellate court had
directed to provide a copy of the appeal as
well as the application for condonation of
delay to the counsel for the respondents,
the same will not subserve the purpose as
the appellate authority had admitted the
appeal on the first date of hearing and,
virtually, no opportunity of hearing was
provided. Further if such procedure is
supposed to be sufficient in case of calling
objection on application for condonation of
delay then the very purpose and intent of
the legislature for enactment of the
Limitation Act will frustrate as the same is
not sufficing the very purpose of the word
'sufficient cause' mentioned in the Act
1963.

20. In the instant matter, the appeal
has been filed after an inordinate delay of
26 years. Admittedly, no notice was issued
and the appeal was admitted on the first
day of hearing without issuance of notice to
the petitioner. In such view of the matter,
the appellate authority has not only ignored
the provisions envisaged under the Act
1963 but has also overlooked the settled
proposition of law.

21. Considering the aforesaid facts
and
circumstances,
the
order
dated
21.2.2003 passed by the appellate authority
is hereby set aside.

22. The matter is remanded back to
the appellate authority to decide the matter
afresh after calling objections on the delay
condonation application submitted by the
petitioner
and
after
providing
due
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned
parties. The matter shall be concluded
within six months from the date of this
order. The petitioner shall appear before the
appellate authority within a period of 15
days.

23. The parties undertake that they
shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

24. Interim protection granted by this
Court, vide order dated 8.8.2003 shall
remain continued till disposal of the appeal.

25. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2022)06ILR A321
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.650 of 2022

Ram Pravesh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 -Section 173, 482 -
Indian Panel Code, 1860 -Section 323,
498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section 3/4: - Cognizance of Charge sheet
& continuation of criminal proceeding in a
matrimonial dispute - be quashed when
the parties (husband & wife) have resolved
their entire dispute through a duly verified
compromise - to avoid abuse of process of
law
-
Application
allowed
-
entire
proceeding are hereby quashed. (Para - 14,
15)

Application (U/s 482) is allowed. (E-11)
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited: -

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

2. Narinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun. & ors.
(2014 Vol. 6 SCC 466)

3. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019
vol. 5 SCC 688)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Monoj
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant, Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet dated 07.04.2021
filed in Case No.9956 of 2021 arising out
of Charge sheet No.01 dated 07.04.2021
filed in Case Crime No.0018 of 2021,
under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and
3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila
Thana, District-Kannauj, as well as stay the
proceeding in pursuance of cognizance
order dated 02.08.2021 in view of the
compromise dated 16.03.2021 executed
between both the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are
opposite party No.2 (wife) had lodged an
F.I.R. on 02.02.2021 under Sections 498-A,
323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
against the applicants (Husband and his
family members) alleging that marriage of
applicant and opposite party No.2 was
solemnized about 6 years before. From the
wedlock of applicant No.1 and opposite
party No.2, three children were born, who
are living with opposite party No.2. The
applicants have not satisfied to the dowry
and they started beating and harassing her
for fulfillment of additional demand of
dowry. On 18.01.2021 on the refusal of
demand of dowry by the opposite party
No.2, applicant beaten her due to which
opposite party No.2 has received injuries
on her body. The investigating officer after
investigation has submitted charge sheet
No.1 dated 07.04.2021 before the Court
and the cognizance was accordingly taken
on 02.08.2021. In the meanwhile, due to
intervention of the relatives and well
wishers of the family, opposite party No.2
and
applicants
have
entered
into
compromise on 16.03.2021 outside the
Court and started to live together as
husband and wife along with their children
having no grievance to each other. The
applicants have filed present 482 Cr.P.C.
application to quash the charge sheet dated
07.04.2021, on the basis of compromise
dated 16.03.2021 on 16.02.2022, this Court
passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well
as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submits that the parties have
entered into a compromise as a subject
matter of the dispute was matrimonial. The
terms and conditions have been entered
into a compromise which is Annexure No.
3.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.
2 has acknowledged the aforesaid facts.

The parties shall appear before
the trial court and file compromise within
four weeks. Upon the said compromise
being filed before the trial court, it shall
6 All. Ram Pravesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323
after
due
identification,
verify
the
compromise. The trial Judge shall forward
to this Court a duly verified copy of the
compromise entered into between the
parties along with a copy of his order
verifying the compromise which shall be
before the next date fixed.

List on 30.03.2022 as fresh.

Till the next date of listing, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
applicants in Case No. 9956 of 2021 (Case
Crime No. 0018 of 2021), under Sections
498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Mahila Thana, District Kannauj.

Office will ensure the compliance
of the aforesaid order and will transmit the
copy of the compromise along with copy of
the order to the trial court through the
concerned Session Judge within three
days"

4. In compliance of the order dated
16.2.2022 parties have filed compromise
application in the courts below, which has
been duly verified and sent to this Court
along
with
verification
report
dated
30.03.2022, the same is on the record of the
case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that proceeding of Criminal case
under Sections 498-A,323 IPC and Section
of D.P. Act be quashed as parties to dispute
have entered into compromise which have
been verified also by courts below. He
further submitted that applicant No.1 and
opposite party No.2 along with their
children are living together as such no
useful purpose will be served to drag
present proceeding further he further placed
reliance upon the judgment of this court
reported in 2022 Law Suit (Alld) 104 Dr.
Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, Gian Singh vs.State of Punjab
and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 303, Narinder Singh and others
Vs.State of Punjab and other (2014) 6
Supreme court cases 466 and State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and
others (2019) 5 Supreme court cases 688.

6. Learned Counsel for the opposite
party No.2 has also filed his vakalatnama
and compromise affidavit dated 21.12.2021
stating that opposite party No.2 and
applicant No.1 are living together having
no grievance to each other as such she does
not want to press the proceedings of
criminal case against the applicants.

7. Considered the submission of
learned counsel for the parties.

8. On the point of compromise
between the parties in criminal cases
following case law will be relevant:

(i) Gian Singh vs.State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 303

(ii) Narinder Singh and others
Vs.State of Punjab and other (2014) 6
Supreme court cases 466

(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5
Supreme court cases 688.

9. In the case of Gian Singh (Supra)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para
No.61 and 62 as follows:

"61. The position that emerges
from
the above
discussion
can
be
summarized thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 FIR may be exercised where
the offender and the 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
a
serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly, any compromise between thee a
victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like b 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 predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a 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 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
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. 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 the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the 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.

62. In view of the above, it
cannot be said that B.S. Joshi ,Nikhil
Merchants and Manoj Sharma were not
correctly
decided.
We
answer
the
reference accordingly. Let these matters
be now listed before the Bench(es)
Concerned."

10. In the Case of Narinder Singh
(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows in para No.29:

29. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement
between the parties and exercising its
6 All. Ram Pravesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to
continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under
Section 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.

29.2. When the parties have
reached the settlement and on that basis
petition
for
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
a 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.

29.3. Such a power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of
mental
depravity
or
offences
like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences
are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for
the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to
be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and
predominantly
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.

29.5.
While
exercising
its
powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section
307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous
and
serious
offences
and
therefore are to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against
the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there
for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose,
it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used, etc. Medical report in
respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the
High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can
refuse to accept the Settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas
in the latter case it would be permissible
for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties.
At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement
between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Code or not, timings of settlement
play a crucial role. Those cases where
the settlement is arrived at immediately
after the alleged commission of offence
and
the
matter
is
still
under
investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because
of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet
has
not
been
filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is
framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the
High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but
after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material
mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the
prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence
the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain
from exercising its power under Section
482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the
case finally on merits and to come to a
conclusion as to whether the offence
under Section 307 IPC is committed or
not a Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the
trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties
would not be a ground to accept the
same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted
by the trial court. Here charge is proved
under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing
a convict found guilty of such a crime."

11. In the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs.Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held
as follows in para No. 15.1 to 15.4:

"15.1 That the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash
the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious
impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
6 All. Ram Pravesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
327
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. rwould fall in
the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated as
crime against the society and not against
the individual alone, and therefore, the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to
framing the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. However, such
an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is
collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or
during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of
the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole
and
in
the
circumstances
stated
hereinabove"

12. Learned Counsel for both the
parties are present before this Court and
submitted that the charge sheet including
the proceedings of the case be quashed on
the basis of compromise entered into the
parties.

13. The learned A.G.A. has no
objection as parties to the dispute relating
to matrimonial mater have entered into
compromise.

14. Considering the facts of the
present case as well as the principle of law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as
mentioned above, matrimonial dispute
between the husband and wife should be a
quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire dispute amongst themself
through compromise duly filed and verified
by the Court. There is another aspect of the
case that F.I.R. has been lodged under
Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act,
which will come under category specified
in para No.29.4 laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Narinder Singh (supra) and in
category specified in para No.15.1 laid
down by Apex Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others
(supra)
regading
which
proceedings
relating to matrimonial dispute can be
quashed in exercise of power under
Section-482 Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the discussion made
above, it would be unnecessary to drag
these proceeding, as continuation of the
criminal proceeding despite settlement and
compromise would amount to abuse of
process of law accordingly, the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed on the basis of compromise dated
16.03.2022 as verified on 30.03.2022. The
proceeding of cognizance order dated
02.08.2021 and charge sheet No.1 dated
07.04.2021 filed in Case No.9956 of 2021
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arising out of Case Crime No.0018 of 2021,
under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and 3/4
of D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana,
District-Kannauj
including
the
entire
proceedings of the case are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, .J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1312 of 2022

Uma Shankar Soni & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manish Bajpai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 -Section 156(3), 200,
202, 482 - Indian Panel Code, 1860 -
Section 419, 420 - Employee Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act,
1952 (EPF)-Section 14, 14A, 14AC -
Employee St. Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI)-
Section 85, 86, 86A, 94 - Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -Section 10, 14,
33, 33(5): - Validity of summoning order &
dismissal of revision - complaint case filed
by an Employee - without arrayed the
company as party - against officers of
company
which
is
under
liquidation
proceeding - for violation of obligations to
deposit shares of employee towards EPF &
ESI Act, - interpretation of Doctrine of
contribution
-
companies,
corporate
Houses and Corporations are not immuned
from Criminal prosecution - Application
allowed - impugned judgment & order set
aside - Trial Court directed to proceed
accordingly.(Para - 41, 44, 45)

Application
(U/s
482)
is
allowed,
judgment and order of Trial court is set
aside. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Aneeta Hada Vs Godfather Travels & Tours
Pvt. Ltd. (2012 vol. 5 SCC 661)

2. Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs Sangita Rane (2015
Vol. 12 SCC 781)

3. Sushil Sethi & anr. Vs St. of Arunachal
Pradesh & ors. (2020 vol. 3 SCC 240)

4. S K Alagh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2008 vol. 5
SCC 662)

5. Roop Mani Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
Decided on 16.02.2016

6. Standard Chartered Bank Vs Director of
Enforcement (2005 vol. 4 SCC 530)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim and
Sri Manish Bajpai, learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh,
AGA-I and Sri Sushil Pandey, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The notice to the respondent no.2 is
hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
assailing the order dated 29th September,
2021 passed by 9th Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly in Criminal
Revision No.54 of 2019 as well as order
dated 19th May, 2017 passed by ACJM,
Court no.15, Rae Bareilly in Compliant
Case No. 3074 of 2016, under Sections