Ram Jiyavan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8563 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Jiyavan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48860
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12279 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Jiyavan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gorakh Yadav,Nipun Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Gorakh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Shoaib Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 28.9.2017 and bailable warrant dated 20.12.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 10, Azamgarh as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1372 of 2016 (Indramani vs. Jamurta Devi and others), under section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Deogaon, District-Azamgarh, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., court no. 10, Azamgarh.

3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy are that opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint against the applicant and other co-accused persons under section 420 I.P.C., which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1372 of 2016, in which the applicant and other co-accused have been summoned. The applicant and other co-accused have challenged the impugned summoning order though application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31865 of 2024, in which interim order was granted but during pendency of the aforesaid application the parties have settled their dispute amicably and entered into a compromise, therefore the aforesaid application was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2024 directing the parties to file the compromise before the court below with further direction to the court below to verify the same.

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 12.11.2024, passed in application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31865 of 2023 (Basdev Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and another) the compromise has been verified by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 10 Azamgarh by order dated 4.12.2024, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings against the co-accused has already been quashed by this Court on the basis of the above verified compromise in application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 31865 of 2023, vide order dated 10.1.2025, copy of the same has been annexed at page no. 19 of the supplementary affidavit.

6. A request is made that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the compromise between them has been verified, hence the above impugned proceedings against the applicant may also be quashed.

7. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-

"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 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 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 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 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-

"15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

9. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

10. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicants, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

11. Considering the above facts as well as law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1372 of 2016 (Indramani vs. Jamurta Devi and others), under section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Deogaon, District-Azamgarh, is hereby quashed.

12. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.4.2025

Faridul