Allahabad High Court
Shahid And Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 3 November, 2015
Bench: Bharat Bhushan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35884 of 2012
Applicant :- Shahid And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
Heard Mr Surendra Mishra, Advocate holding brief for Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the state.
By means of this application the applicants have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1136 of 2011 (Smt Jahan Aara Vs Shahid and others), pending in the Court of ACJM Xth, District Agra, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S. New Agra, District Agra as well as the summoning order dated 12.7.2012.
Record reveals that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants upon which learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and his witnesses summoned the applicants to face the trial in aforesaid sections. When the matter came up before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the proceedings and sent the matter before the mediation centre of this Court on the premise that the matter is related to a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and there is likelihood of settlement.
Today both the parties have filed a joint affidavit and have jointly prayed for quashing of entire proceedings of the aforesaid case on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the parties that it was a dispute between the husband and wife and both the parties have settled their dispute out side the court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the parties that now both the parties have entered into compromise and in this regard a joint affidavit has been filed by the parties stating that they do not want to face the ordeal of the trial, therefore, the petition may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Yogendra Yadav and Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (Criminal Appeal No.1205/2014), (2014) 9 SCC 653. In the cited decision, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 203, is referred to. In Yogendra Yadav's case, the Supreme Court in para 4 has made the following observations:
"4???????... Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."
The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others reported in 2003 (46) ACC Page 779 (S.C.), has held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, in case the parties have arrived at settlement agreement of their matrimonial disputes, and section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Similarly in Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 677, compromise was permitted and criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise. In Gian Singh versus State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 S.C.C. 303, the Apex Court has held thus :
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."
The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.are wide and unfettered. In B.S.Joshi (supra), Apex court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, where the dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties, who are willing to settle their differences amicably.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC, 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab And Another; 2014 AIR SCW 2065 the proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be set aside.
Coming back to the facts of the case, it is apparent that matter relates to a dispute between the husband and wife which resulted in some sort of incident. Now the parties are willing to leave behind entire dispute on the basis of compromise, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings or by not accepting the compromise between the parties. Matter deserves to be given quietus in the facts of the case. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1136 of 2011 (Smt Jahan Aara Vs Shahid and others), pending in the Court of ACJM Xth, District Agra, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act, P.S. New Agra, District Agra are hereby quashed
Order Date :- 3.11.2015/RavindraKSingh
