Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) HEARD Ms. Ananya Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in Case Crime No. 860 of 2007, State of U. P. v. Teerath Kumar under Section 498A/323/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate). The applicant has also sought quashing of the order dated 2.5.2008, passed by the Magistrate (Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed alongwith application) and the Charge Sheet No. 27 of 2007 dated 7th May, 2007 bearing Crime No. 31 of 2007, dated 7th May, 2007 under Sections 498A and 323/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act (Annexure-2 to the affidavit). Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings are illegal inasmuch as the allegations levelled against the accused do not constitute any cognizable offence, and in fact the proceedings are motivated and sheer harassment of the accused. She further contended that in any case the applicant is ready to enter into settlement with his wife Smt. Rekha the daughter of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the matter may be referred to Mediation Centre and in the meantime the proceedings pending before Magistrate concerned be kept in abeyance. For the said purpose, she placed reliance on a single Judge judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9421 of 2009, Heneef and others v. State of U. P., decided on 6th May, 2009 and the Apex Court decision in B. S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SCC 1386 : 2003 (2) ACR 1305 (SC). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, however, I do not find any force in any of the above submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and in my view the application deserves to be quashed. From a bare perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet, it is evident that the allegations are that the accused beat, his wife Smt. Rekha, demanded dowry etc. and the lady also suffered serious injuries. The police having made preliminary investigation and collecting cogent evidence found commission of a cognizable offence and thus has submitted the charge-sheet. It is incorrect that the said allegations do not constitute any cognizable offence. Whether the allegations are correct or not, that is a matter to be seen during trial and not at this stage. Quashing of charge-sheet in criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is not a routine matter but this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. sparingly and strictly if the conditions provided therein are attracted. The power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised for enforcement of an order of the Court under the code or if there is a glaring case of abuse of process of law or to meet the ends of justice. On mere asking or in a routine manner, such power is not to be exercised. That too, at the initial stage when the charge-sheet has been filed and the regular trial is yet to proceed. I need not burden this judgment with catena of the authorities of the Apex Court expressing its views time and again that power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court in a casual fashion but sparingly when a case within the 4 corners of Section 482, Cr. P.C. is made out. The nature of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is, in fact, an exception and not the rule. In State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal, 2004 Cr LJ 3866 : 2005 (2) ACR 2133 (SC), it was observed that Section 482, Cr. P.C. only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed even before the enactment of the code. It is true that no exhaustive list can be given as to when it would be necessary to pass an order to otherwise secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and that would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but at least this much is certain that this power can be exercised only when this Court is satisfied that there is a great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory provisions have not been complied with, resulting in failure of justice. None of these conditions could be pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant warranting any interference by this Court.
(3.) NOW coming to the second aspect of the matter that the applicant is ready and inclined to enter into compromise with the wife and therefore, the matter should be referred to Mediation Centre, I find that even this request cannot be accepted in a routine manner, just on mere asking but there has to be material on record to show the genuineness and bona fide of the applicant that he is ready and willing to enter into settlement in matrimonial matter and further this Court must also be satisfied from the record that there is some probability or possibility of compromise or settlement between the parties. If such a prayer ex parte is accepted, it may prolong the trial before the court below and may prove to be a pretext to delay the trial by allowing a matter to trouble to extra judicial adjudicatory forum like Mediation Centre etc., without recording any finding of possibility of settlement or compromise between the parties. Any order to defer the proceedings of trial till the matter would remain pending before such extra-judicial adjudicatory forum would only cause harassment to other party and delay criminal administration of justice in the Court of Law. If the Court without recording its prima facie satisfaction on the basis of some material that there is some scope of settlement, refer the matter for mediation etc. If the applicant who has shown his intention regarding settlement or compromise has any bona fide to do so, he has to show that he has taken steps or made attempt in pursuance thereto. For example, he can show that he has written letters to the wife or her parents proposing compromise or settlement, or that he has made an application before the trial court with such a request and so on. I need not give an exhaustive list and the ways whereby such intention can be shown by the accused but atleast there has to be something on record for the satisfaction of the Court that if an attempt is made for out of Court settlement or compromise between the parties, in matrimonial matters, the same may amicably be settled. Of late, experience shows that in a very negligible number of matters the parties have arrived at settlement but in rest of the cases this approach has, infact resulted only in a huge delay in the trial which is from more than year to several years. I am fully conscious of the fact that in matrimonial matters sometimes on account of momentary passion or difference of temperament, attitude etc., some misunderstanding takes place which gets enlarged to an extent and to such a serious stage where even the criminal proceeding gets initiated by one or the other party and if an attempt is made, to settle their dispute amicably the parties may come together but in such matters the Court has to take a realistic view which may help the parties and not to victimize one of the parties at the cost of others. In B. S. Joshi (supra) from my reading of the judgment atleast, I do not find any such wide and general proposition that in matrimonial matters as and when somebody makes a request for compromise or settlement, a criminal trial or proceedings should immediately be deferred and the matter should be referred for settlement before extra judicial adjudicatory forums as is the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.;