Allahabad High Court
Sarnam And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12397 of 2022
Applicant :- Sarnam And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Sri Devendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of summoning/ cognizance order dated 09.02.2019 as well as proceedings of Case No. 325 of 2015 (State Vs. Sarnam and Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 340 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Anwala, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute is in between the same family and by the efflux of time, the matter has been compromised between the parties, pursuant to which an application has been filed before the Court below for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case has been rejected. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SCC 518 Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour under its inherent powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. Learned counsel further submits in the matter of Dimpey Gujral (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that trial for the offence of personal nature may be quashed irrespective of the fact that one of the offence was non-compoundable. 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 same family neither involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement between the parties
In this view of the matter, to permit the applicants to face the wrath of prosecution in the face of compromise dated 03.02.2020 be an abuse of the process of the court, as no evidence would be forthcoming to nail the applicants. Thus the pending proceedings before the court below would be an abuse of the process of the court which is liable to be quashed.
The application is allowed. The proceedings of summoning/ cognizance order dated 09.02.2019 as well as proceedings of Case No. 325 of 2015 (State Vs. Sarnam and Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 340 of 2018, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Anwala, Bareilly is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Abhishek Singh
