Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19841 of 2014 Petitioner :- Akabar Ali And 3 Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- L.K. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri L.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishwas Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri K.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No.26 of 2013 (Akbar Ali and others Vs. State and another) as well as the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by J.M.- Ist, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Complaint Case No.871 of 2012.
A joint affidavit dated 29.7.2016 has been filed annexing therewith a certified copy of the compromise 29.7.2016 duly signed by the parties.
Sri Vishwas Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri K.S. Shukla, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 does not dispute the authenticity/correctness of the compromise and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the joint affidavit dated 29.7.2016 wherein in paragraph no.4 it has been stated that the petitioners and the respondent no.2 have entered into a compromise and have amicably settled their dispute in presence of respected persons of the village on 17.7.2016 and they have settled their dispute before 'Panch', in this respect both the parties had filed compromise in criminal case No.871 of 2012 (Suresh Kumar Saroj Vs. Akbar Ali and others), pending before the Court of J.M.-Ist, Bhdohi at Gyanpur on 18.7.2016.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise dated 17.7.2016 (Annexure-1 to the joint affidavit dated 29.7.2016) arrived at between the parties, proceedings pending before the court below be quashed as the offence was neither heinous nor involved any moral turpitude, rather only personal, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that;
"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 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 favour 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. 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the parties have buried their hatchet under a compromise dated 17.7.2016 a certified copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-1) to the compromise application, authenticity of which is not disputed. The offence is neither heinous nor it involved any moral turpitude, dispute if any was personal, which has now been amicably settled. In view of aforesaid compromise, conviction is ruled out, prosecution of the applicants would be an abuse of the process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
The order impugned order dated 3.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No.26 of 2013 (Akbar Ali and others Vs. State and another) as well as the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by J.M.-Ist, Bhadohi - Gyanpur in Complaint Case No.871 of 2012, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Dev/-