In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case, recognizing a compromise reached between the parties. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, highlights the court’s discretion under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash proceedings in cases where a settlement has been amicably reached, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a family dispute that began in 2009, following the death of Monu, the first husband of the complainant, Smt. Rinki @ Guddi. After Monu’s death, an arrangement was made for her to marry his brother, Raju @ Raj Kumar. However, soon after this second marriage, Rinki alleged that her new husband and in-laws started harassing her for dowry. The harassment allegedly escalated to an attempted murder, leading her to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) at the Balainee Police Station, Baghpat, on November 9, 2009.
The police investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet against Raju @ Raj Kumar and others under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in the case was whether the High Court could quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, given that the charges included non-compoundable offences like Section 307 IPC, which deals with attempted murder.
The applicants, represented by advocates Ram Raj Pandey and Shubham Pandey, argued that the parties had resolved their differences and sought quashing of the proceedings to restore family peace. They presented a compromise deed, verified by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Baghpat, as evidence of the settlement.
The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the quashing, citing the serious nature of the charges. The prosecution argued that offenses like attempted murder are crimes against society and should not be quashed merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Mishra, in his judgment, acknowledged the Supreme Court’s guidelines on quashing criminal proceedings in cases involving non-compoundable offences. He referred to several precedents, including the landmark judgment in Gian Singh vs. Punjab (2012), where the Supreme Court allowed for quashing in certain non-compoundable offences if the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and a continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in injustice.
The court noted that Rinki had not sustained any serious injuries and that the dispute was essentially matrimonial, involving dowry demands—a context where courts have occasionally quashed proceedings following a settlement.
The court observed:
“This Court can exercise its power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beyond the boundaries of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which states that only compoundable offences can be compounded, and this Court can even quash the proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties.”
The court emphasized that in cases of serious and heinous offences, particularly those affecting society at large, the proceedings should generally not be quashed. However, it found that in this specific instance, where the injuries were not severe and the matter was essentially matrimonial, quashing the proceedings would be in the interest of justice.
The judgment concluded with the court allowing the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashing the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, on the basis of the verified compromise.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 37396 of 2012 and Application U/S 482 No. 39186 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
– Parties Involved: Raju @ Raj Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
– Counsel for Applicant: Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate
