Allahabad High Court
Col. Lokesh Chander Midha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76142
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10238 of 2024
Applicant :- Col. Lokesh Chander Midha
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Chandra,Ajit Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed for the following main relief(s):-
"i. to set aside/quash the proceedings of Case No. 15796/2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0993/2018 (State Vs Lokesh Middha) pending in the Court of Special Chief dicial Magistrate, Customs, Lucknow under Section- 41/348/506 of the India Penal Code, 1860.
ii. to set aside/quash the proceedings of Case No. 15797 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 1049 of 2018 (State Vs Lokesh Middha) dated 12/10/2018 under Section 323, 504, 506 of the IPC pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Customs, Lucknow.
iii. to set aside/quash the proceedings of Case No. 14422/2024 in Case Crime No. 0427/2023 (State Vs Lokesh Middha) pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Customs, Lucknow under Section 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
iv. to set aside/quash order dated 23/11/2023 passed in Case Crime No. 102 of 2023 under Section 145 of the Indian Penal Code by the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Executive Magistrate, North Lucknow, Ghazipur Thana, Lucknow, a copy of which is filed as Annexure No. 7 to the petition.
v. direct the learned court below not to take any coercive measures against the applicant in pursuance to the above pending proceedings."
3. After considering the above quoted relief(s) sought in this application, on being confronted, learned counsel for the applicant to substantiate his argument that in a single petition reliefs related to different/various causes/cases can be sought, has placed reliance on paragraph no.11 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which is quoted hereinunder.
"11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.InGian Singh v. State of Punjay, (2012) 10 SCC 303, a bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are:
"61 ?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. Inwhat cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
4. Upon due consideration of the above quoted paragraph as also the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that for different/separate causes/cases single petition would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected with liberty to the applicant to file separate petitions in relation to separate cases.
5. Certified copies, if any, shall be returned back to the learned Counsel for the applicant, as prayed.
Order Date :- 19.11.2024
Anand/-
