Jitendra @ Jeetu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3308 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1101 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jeetu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of criminal case no.2241 of 2022 (State Vs. [email protected]) along with charge sheet no.22 of 2022 arising out of case crime no.17 of 2022 under sections 354D, 504, 506 IPC,police station-Meerganj, District-Bareilly pending in the court of A.C.J.M. court-V, Bareilly.

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that victim herself has lodged the FIR under section 376 and 506 IPC but during investigation, she has somersaulted by 180 and diluted the allegations of rape to the maximum extent. Neither she in her 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case nor she has ever admitted herself for any medical examination. Moreover, she stated before the doctor that no sexual offence has been made by the applicant against her and therefore, taking into account the totality of circumstances, police eventually has submitted the charge sheet under section 354D and 504, 506 IPC against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to annexure-11 of the application whereby the prosecutrix herself has given an application dated 13.12.2022 supported by an affidavit on the same date in which she has categorically stated that :-

"(2) That it is pertinent to state that due to political rivalry, the candidate in Pradhan election create undue influence upon the complainant and forced to lodge the FIR against the accused [email protected]

(3)That after some time of submission of complainant against [email protected] give written submission before the authority of Police station-Meerganj to withdraw her coplaint and not want to lodge the FIR but not succeeded.

(4)That after some time of revealed to applicant that FIR is being lodged against Jitendra @Jeetu and the I.O. forced the applicant for submit her version under section 164 Cr.P.C. and threatened for dire consequences of the applicant was not be close.

(5) That the applicant submitted her version vide this application and want to withdraw her case lodged against accused [email protected] and the same is done without any coercion or undue force."

Taking into account the totality of circumstances and her own averment in the application that she does not want to pursue the case any more, there is no distinguishable reason to keep this matter pending. Taking the gravity of the offence and considering the fact that the victim herself has given an application supported by her own affidavit that on some extraneous material, she has lodged the FIR against the applicant. Now, she does not want to pursue the case any more. The fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and he confirms that as per instruction from his client, Ms. Babita Gangwar, he is authorized to make the submission that his client does not want to pursue the case anymore and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, entire proceeding of criminal case no.2241 of 2022 (State Vs. [email protected]) along with charge sheet no.22 of 2022 arising out of case crime no.17 of 2022 under sections 354D, 504, 506 IPC,police station-Meerganj, District-Bareilly pending in the court of A.C.J.M. court-V, Bareilly is hereby quashed.

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

Sumit S