Allahabad High Court
Abhay Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 May, 2016
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10389 of 2016
Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Short counter affidavit along with vakalatnama filed by Sri Devendra Dahma, advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 5658 of 1999 (State Vs. Abhay Raj Singh) under Sections 147, 380, 448, 506 IPC, pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in view of settlement / compromise dated 24.1.2016.
Pursuant to order dated 3.2.2016, the parties appeared before the court below on 1.3.2016 for verification of settlement, who were duly identified by their counsel's, while verifying the compromise / settlement dated 24.1.2016.
It was thus contended that in view of the settlement dated 24.1.2016, the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the court below be quashed in the light of the Judgment of Apex Court in the case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;
"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 favour 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."
There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the dispute was between the husband and wife neither involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under the amicable settlement dated 24.1.2016.
Thus, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Case No. 5658 of 1999 (State Vs. Abhay Raj Singh) under Sections 147, 380, 448, 506 IPC, pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad or any other assignee court is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2016
A. Singh
