Allahabad High Court
Hasim And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89240
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7820 of 2024
Applicant :- Hasim And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Session Case No. 109 of 2024 (State Vs. Hasim and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 147, 452, 354, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Rorawar, District-Aligarh as well as charge sheet No. 467 of 2023 dated 16.11.2023 and cognizance order dated 22.01.2024 pending in the Court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, on the basis of compromise dated 20.02.2024 done between the parties.
At the very outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 7820 of 2024, the parties have appeared before the court concerned along with compromise deed dated 20.02.2024 and the same has been duly verified by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 23.04.2024. It has further been submitted that the alleged dispute took place mainly due to partition of the residential house in regard to the distribution of share amongst both the parties, who are close relatives. As per the compromise, the daughter of the first informant was about 18 years of age and as per the Radiological Report dated 10.10.2023, the age of the victim is determined about 17-18 years.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of family discord between the applicants the opposite party No. 2. Though the criminal case has been lodged against the applicants by the opposite parties but the opposite parties are not interested to pursue the matter pending in the Court concerned, and, therefore, the impugned proceedings be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties admits the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and states that he has no objection if the impugned proceeding pending against the applicants is quashed.
Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
The law with regard to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled.
Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench Judgment in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)10 SCC 303, has held that "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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others, vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down broad principles of quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the ground that "even in the non compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases."
Both the parties have agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending amongst them in Court concerned. From perusal of the records and the law as cited above, the present case is a good case for exercise of power by the Court to quash charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings.
The dispute appears to be a family discord which purely of a personal nature that has been mutually settled between the parties to their entire satisfaction, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
In view of the above, the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 109 of 2024 (State Vs. Hasim and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 147, 452, 354, 354-Kha, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Rorawar, District-Aligarh, are hereby quashed.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Shivani
