Allahabad High Court
Ganesh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43391 of 2022
Applicant :- Ganesh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shad Khan,Chandra Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr Pranav Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent is also present.
By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the Special ST/Case No. 342 of 2019 (Complaint Case No. 29 of 2018), under Sections 376(D), 452,323,506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Paniyara, District Maharajganj.
The ground for quashing of the proceedings is compromise arrived at between the parties on 21.01.2023. A compromise affidavit has been brought on record by way of compromise affidavit which has been filed by opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the parties submits that when there is a compromise between the parties, this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings.
On the contrary, learned AGA has contended that Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharastra and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 has held that the High Court should exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with great circumspection and sparingly. It is further contended that the issue pertains to quashing of the complaint on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties under Sections 376(D), 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. There is no gainsaying that the offence in question does fall in the category of heinous offence hence the compromise as contended by learned counsel for the parties is of no consequences.
The Supreme Court in the recent judgment rendered in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 936 has held that before exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR, criminal compliant and/or criminal proceedings, the High Court is required to be circumspect and must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous or serious crimes, which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society, cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and the complainant and/or the victim. It has further been held that orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on the basis of an agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent.
On perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. clearly it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra), this Court find that there is no ground to quash the proceedings in the present case on the ground of compromise. There is no gainsaying that the offence in question does fall in the category of heinous offence against the minor and thus, the compromise as contended by learned counsel for the parties is of no consequences. Hence, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the cases falling under the heinous category. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.
The present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2023
RavindraKSingh
