Allahabad High Court
Ashwani Kumar @ Ramesh And Another vs State Of Up And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25514 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar @ Ramesh And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Keshav Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of applicant, Sri Keshav Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/stay the criminal proceedings as well as cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 and impugned charge sheet No. 46/2018 dated 01.03.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2018, under section 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Allahabad Criminal Case No. 4345 of 2018 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, V, Allahabad in the term of joint compromise dated 21.06.2019 entered between the parties.
Learned counsel on behalf of applicant submits that on 21.06.2019 both the parties settled their dispute amicably through a compromise without any undue pressure. A copy of compromise dated 21.06.2019 has been annexed as Anneuxre No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 states that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise by means of joint affidavit dated 21.06.2019 sworn by both the parties.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, proceedings pending before the court below be quashed as the offence was neither heinous nor involved any moral turpitude, rather only personal, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Arti
