High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 25 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17844 of 2017 Applicant :- Jitendra Maurya And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Vishwakarma,Ravi Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed praying for quashing of the charge sheet dated 17.9.2016 as well as entire proceedings of
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Case No. 591 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, district Sonbhadra pending in the court of CJM, Sonbhadra. The court having regard to the nature of dispute and the possibility of an amicable settlement, referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where the parties have arrived at a written settlement dated 9.1.2018 in terms whereof, all their subsisting disputes stood settled. The parties have specifically agreed that all their criminal matters shall also stand terminated, including the one in hand. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has laid down the principles governing the exercise of power by High Court under Section 482 CrPC in cases where the parties have arrived at amicable settlement as follows: - "61. …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 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 the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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." Much before the said judgment, in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Supreme Court had categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. In a recent judgment in Ram Gopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012), decided on 29.9.2021, reported in (2022) 118 ACC 318, the Supreme Court once again reiterated that even if the offences are non-compoundable, the High Court can quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, having regard to the nature of the offences and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceeding. While so holding, it has been pointed out that the High Court can indisputably evaluate the consequential effects of the offences beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. In para 14 of the said judgment, the principles have been summarized as follows: - 14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a 'settlement' through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that "let no guilty man escape, if it can be avoided." I have gone through the allegations/charges against the accused/s and I am of the opinion that these are not of such nature as would fall within the excepted class of cases where quashing the proceeding and permitting the accused to go unpunished, would have any detrimental effect on the society at large. The dispute between the parties was predominantly of a private nature, which has been settled amicably. I am of the opinion that in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 591 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, district Sonbhadra pending in the court of CJM, Sonbhadra against the applicants are hereby quashed. (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Order Date :- 14.3.2022 Sumaira Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.04.20 11:30:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad