Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28103 of 2019 Applicant :- Bansh Gopal @ Gokul And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Singh
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
By means of this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 21.10.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 61 of 2008 (Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Bansh Gopal & others), under Sections 147, 148, 324, 395, 452, 397, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Sakrar, District- Jhansi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Dacioty Act), Jhansi on the basis that parties have entered into compromise by moving an appropriate compromise before the Court concerned on 14.03.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards the order dated 18.7.2019 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 No.27659 of 2019 in which a cross-case against the informant and others have been settled out and proceedings have been quashed by this Court in the same incident which took place on 14.02.2008. Submission is that the applicants are also entitled for the same relief.
The apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. Vide paras 48, 50, 56 and 57 of the judgment (supra), the Court has observed thus:
"48. A five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2007) 4 CTC 769 was called upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings or allow the compounding of the offences in the cases which have been specified as non-compoundable offences under the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. The five-Judge Bench referred to quite a few decisions of this Court including the decisions in Madhu Limaye12 , Bhajan Lal30 , L. Muniswamy11 , Simrikhia14, B.S. Joshi1 and Ram Lal38 and framed the following guidelines:
"21. a. Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case.
b. Cases pertaining to property disputes between close relations, which are predominantly civil in nature and they have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liability. Notwithstanding a touch of criminal liability, the settlement would bring lasting peace and harmony to larger number of people.
c. Cases of dispute between old partners or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are predominantly civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parties are essentially seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial claim.
d. Minor offences as under Section 279, IPC may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non- compoundable is Section 506 (II), IPC, which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Section 506 IPC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Sections 147 and 148, IPC, more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No. 17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Sections 506(II) IPC, 147 IPC and 148, IPC compoundable offences by amending the schedule under Section 320, Cr.P.C.
e. The offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also fall in the prohibited category. Offences committed by Public Servants purporting to act in that capacity as also offences against public servant while the victims are acting in the discharge of their duty must remain non-compoundable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter-VII (relating to army, navy and air force) must remain non-compoundable.
f. That as a broad guideline the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair.
While parting with this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being free from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution."
To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
50. A three-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra (2008 2 Mah LJ 856 dealt with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code vis-a-vis the express bar for compounding of the non- compoundable offences in Section 320(9) of the Code. The High Court referred to various decisions of this Court and also the decisions of the various High Courts and then stated as follows :
"14. The power of compounding on one hand and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers on the other, are incapable of being treated as synonymous or even inter- changeable in law. The conditions precedent and satisfaction of criteria in each of these cases are distinct and different. May be, the only aspect where they have any commonality is the result of exercise of such power in favour of the accused, as acquittal is the end result in both these cases. Both these powers are to be exercised for valid grounds and with some element of objectivity. Particularly, the power of quashing the FIR or criminal proceedings by the Court by taking recourse to inherent powers is expected to be used sparingly and that too without losing sight of impact of such order on the criminal justice delivery system. It may be obligatory upon the Court to strike a balance between the nature of the offence and the need to pass an order in exercise of inherent powers, as the object of criminal law is protection of public by maintenance of law and order."
56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.
57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment."
Thus, in view of the legal position as has been detailed out by the apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (supra), the present application u/s 482 stands granted.
The entire proceedings in pursuance thereof in order dated 21.10.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 61 of 2008 (Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Bansh Gopal & others), under Sections 147, 148, 324, 395, 452, 397, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Sakrar, District- Jhansi, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Dacioty Act), Jhansi, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 shiv