Allahabad High Court
Vijay Gupta And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3300 of 2013
Revisionist :- Vijay Gupta And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Gupta,K.C. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Devesh Kumar,Rupak Chaubey
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2011(Vijay Gupta and others vs. State of U.P.) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi has rejected the criminal appeal of the revisionists and has confirmed the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the court below in Criminal Case No.786 of 2010 (State vs. Pushpraj Gupta an others) arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2008, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Mahanagar, Varanasi convicting the revisionists in the offence under section 498-A, 506(2) IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, the revisionists shall further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment, in the offence under section 323, 504 IPC for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, the revisionists shall further under go 15 days additional simple imprisonment and in the offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the revisionists shall further undergo 15 days additional simple imprisonment, all the sentences shall run concurrently. .
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist no. 2 is husband and the opposite party no. 2 is his wife and there was matrimonial dispute between them and now both have amicable settled their dispute and are living separately. The revisionist no. 2 and opposite party no. 2 have filed a written compromise in this revision which was sent to the trial court and the trial court has reported after verification that the parties have compromise their dispute amicably and there is no dispute left between them. Therefore, the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the matter and prosecution of the revisionist may be closed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the compromise and closing the proceeding.
Since this is a dispute of private nature between the two sides, hence, it was found to be covered by the judgment of Supreme Court laid-down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and in such kind of case, proceedings may be quashed in case of compromise. Paragraph no.61 of Gian Singh's case (Supra) is quoted here-in-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 pre-dominatingly 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."
In view of above, since both the parties have now entered into compromise, therefore, in view of law laid down in the above-mentioned case, this being a dispute between the two sides, which is of private nature, the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserve to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending, there being no possibility of conviction.
Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the instant application stands allowed
Order Date :- 14.3.2022
AU
