High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:138658 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24035 of 2024 Applicant :- Punwasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Ramesh Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 459 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 148 of 2017, under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Tarwan, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Azamgarh, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide on 01.08.2017 and the informant has lodged the case under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against the applicant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant and trial of the case is in progress and six prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court so far. The material witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. It was further submitted that now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and the copy of the compromise between the parties has been annexed with this application. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 652. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in heinous offences like that of dowry death, proceedings of the trial, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. It was also submitted that the trial of the case is at advanced stage and six prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court so far. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that in appropriate cases, the criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. In the case of Gian Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its 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 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. 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly 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, 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 7. It is apparent from the aforesaid case law that in certain matters, the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence but the proceedings of heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. It is correct that dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC has not been mentioned in the aforesaid case law but it has been mentioned that the offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. A reference may also be made to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, wherein after discussing several decisions, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that proceedings of the heinous offences cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. The instant matter relates to dowry death of a young lady. Considering the law applicable on the point, this Court is of the considered view that proceedings of a case under Section 304-B IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. It may also be stated that the trial of the case is at advanced stage and six prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Anand