Anisha Khatoon v. Mohd. Sayeed), during the pendency of this revision
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3165 of 2017 Revisionist :- Mohd. Sayeed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. Matter taken up in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist.
Legal Reasoning
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: (16.1) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. (16.2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (16.3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of (16.4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. the exercise of justice would power. inherent justify the (16.5) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. (16.6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. (16.7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (16.8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. (16.9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (16.10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the revisionist(s). The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2014 (Anisha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Sayeed) is hereby quashed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 11.3.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.03.14 10:35:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned State counsel is present. This revision is of year 2017. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record with the assistance of the learned State counsel. The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed before this Court with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal revision and set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.06.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2014 with a further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 23.06.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 107 of 2014 (Anisha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Sayeed), during the pendency of this revision." The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2017 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably. As per the office report dated 10.03.2022, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the medication proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 17.02.2018 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another :(2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed. In the case of Gian Singh (Supra) in para-58 the Apex Court has held as under: - "58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." Further in para 61 of the judgment in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Apex Court has further held that where the parties have entered into compromise particularly in the matters predominantly of civil nature, matrimonial relating to dowry and family dispute etc. which are of private and personal nature, the High Court may quash the proceedings in such matters. Para 61 of the said judgment is extracted herein-below: "61. 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 predominatingly 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." Further in the case of Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur (Supra) the Apex Court has laid down the category of cases in which the offences can be compounded, the said guidelines are extracted herein-below:-