Smt. Reeta Chaudhary And Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 4967 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12600 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Chaudhary And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Saroj
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Manjeet Singh,Shambhu Chopra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1365 of 2012 (State Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 772 of 2011, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, on the basis of a compromise executed between the applicants and opposite party no. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that a civil dispute arose between the parties in respect of some landed property, which also gave rise to lodging of an F.I.R. by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants under the aforesaid sections. However, good sense prevailed between the parties and they entered into a compromise before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 10.01.2014. An application for compounding the offence was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar, but the court below did not take cognizance of that application on the ground that Section 452 I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of the fact that compromise between the parties has taken place and now there is no dispute left between them.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the parties have settled the matter and they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable them to live with peace and love. The compromise entered between them records that they have no grudge against each other and the complainant / opposite party no. 2 has specifically agreed that he has no objection if the F.I.R. in question is quashed. Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other in future. Therefore, continuance of the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R. will be an exercise in futile and mere wastage of precious time of this Court as well as Investigating Agencies.

Learned counsel for the applicants has supported his submissions with the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court given in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has not contested the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and he also prays that the criminal proceedings be quashed. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the aforesaid F.I.R. is quashed. He has requested this Court that the criminal proceedings may be quashed with direction to the applicants to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement dated 10.01.2014. However, learned A.G.A. has brought to the notice of this Court one recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manish and Others (2015) 8 SCC 307 wherein the Apex Court has set aside the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the Madhya Pradesh High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the disputes were amicably settled between the parties.

In the aforesaid case of Manish (supra), the Apex Court has considered the law laid down in its earlier judgment of Gian Singh (supra) and has held that offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are such in nature that by no stretch of imagination those can be held to be offence between private parties simpliciter. Such offences have serious impact on society at large. As these offences are definitely against society, the private respondents will have to necessarily face trial and come out unscathed by demonstrating their innocence.

In so far as the case in hand is concerned, the submission of learned A.G.A. is that Section 452 I.P.C. is also a non-compoundable offence having its impact on society at large, hence in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that a civil dispute between both the parties had culminated into a criminal case under Sections 452, 323, 504. 506 I.P.C. The F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2 which is Annexure No. 1 clearly shows that the allegations against the applicants is only of scuffle (hatha-pai) with opposite party no. 2, using filthy language and threatening. No serious injury has been caused to anyone. The parties have entered into compromise and have decided to keep harmony between them in future and to live with peace and love. The trial is at the initial stage of framing charges. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between the parties, there is a minimal chance of witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. The chance of conviction, therefore, appears to be remote.

Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 has quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 307/324/323/34 I.P.C. on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and has quashed the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the High Court had refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the injury suffered by the complainant were serious in nature.

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 the three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines regarding the legal position as to in what circumstnaces and in what type of cases such exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked dehors Section 320 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing of criminal proceedings as under:-

"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 plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse f 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 flavor 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 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."

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed earlier in the light of aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it does not appear just and proper to dismiss the present application only due to the reason that the F.I.R. incorporates one non-compoundable offence i.e. 452 I.P.C.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1365 of 2012 (State Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 772 of 2011, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 2.12.2015

NS