Allahabad High Court
Jamuna Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27660 of 2022
Applicant :- Jamuna Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.441/IX/22 of 2022 (State vs. Jamuna Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1067 of 2021 under section 323, 354, 506, 498A IPC, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court (Offence against Women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties on 23.08.2022 and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
In paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the dispute has been settled between the parties in the presence of respected persons of the society on 23.08.2022 and the compromise is annexed at page-42 of the affidavit. Therefore, the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the matter and prosecution of the applicants may be closed.
Since the opposite party no. 2 has been identified by Sri Surendra Kumar, Advocate and the opposite party no. 2 herself has submitted an affidavit in which it has been mentioned by her that the dispute has been settled between her and the applicants and has no dispute left, there does not appear to be any doubt with respect to the compromise.
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 :- 19.10.2022
AU
