Date of judgement:
23 June 2021
Bench:
Justice Narendra Kumar Johari
Parties:
Petitioner – Shiv Dayal Singh & Ors.
Respondent – The State Of U.P. & Anr
Subject
In this case, Justice N.K. Johari quashed the FIR and set aside the criminal proceedings against the accused after the matter was settled by the parties, thereby establishing that inherent power of the High Court is not limited by Section 320 of the IPC
Legal Provisions
- Section 323 Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 498A IPC – Punishment for subjecting wife to cruelty by husband or a relative.
- Section 504 IPC – Insulting with an intention to provoke breach of peace.
- Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Penalty for giving or taking and demanding dowry.
- Section 482 CrPC – Inherent powers of the High Court.
Overview
- Shiv Dayal Singh (petitioner) was married to respondent no.2 in 2011. Thereafter, their relationship had turned sour, as a result of which the wife (respondent 2) lodged an FIR against her husband (petitioner) under Sections 323,498A, 504 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- The police after the investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed an order summoning the petitioner. Hence, this petition was filed in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the said order. The petitioner further prayed to quash the proceedings of Case No.2445 of 2016 against him under Sections, 323, 498A, 504 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
- The counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR was filed by the wife with clear exaggeration. He contended that during the pendency of the case, a compromise had taken place between the parties and they have separated. He also placed on record a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He also asserted that the deed of compromise was verified by the Senior Registrar.
- The counsel for the respondent agreed that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and there are no grievances between them. They also expressed no objection to quashing or setting aside the criminal case against the petitioner, keeping in mind the compromise. Similarly, no objections were made by the Government Advocate.
- Basically, both parties were intending to compound the offence.
Issues
- Can the High Court exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash or set aside a non-compoundable offence?
Judgement
- The High Court relying on Dinesh Sharma and Ors Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., held that civil disputes and matrimonial disputes between private individuals and criminal matters which have no grave effect can be quashed based on a compromise by the parties. It also said that the Court must encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
- The court also observed that the apex court in its landmark judgement B.S. Joshi and Ors Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, stated that the High Court exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC can quash an FIR or a criminal proceeding and Section 320 of IPC does not limit that power in any way.
- Also, in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and others, it was reiterated that in matrimonial matters even if the offences are non-compoundable, if the court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, the court for the purpose of securing the ends of justice can compound the offence and Section 320 IPC would not be a bar.
- Applying the above judgements in the present case, the court concluded that since both the parties have amicably settled the dispute, it would be pointless to engage them in any further litigation. Also, the chances of conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case are very bleak, hence pursuing the criminal proceedings would be redundant and will only lead to a waste of Courts valuable time.
- Hence, the petition filed by Shiv Dayal Singh under Section 482 CrPC was allowed and the criminal proceedings against him under Sections 323, 498A, 504 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside.
Conclusion
It is manifest that just because an offence is non-compoundable under Section320 IPC, is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. This power can be exercised in cases where there is no chance of a conviction against the accused and the entire trial will turn out to be futile.
There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court in appeal and the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR/complaint or a criminal proceeding.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
