Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 657 of 2009 Applicant :- Jata Shankar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Ref: Order on Criminal Misc. Restoration Application No.2 of 2019.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA appearing for the State.
The restoration application has been moved for recalling the order dated 25.1.2017 whereby the application was dismissed in default.
Sufficient cause has been shown in paragraph nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the restoration application.
The restoration application is allowed and the order dated 25.1.2017 is hereby restored.
The application is restored to its original number.
Office is directed to allot regular number to this application.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 IA Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 657 of 2009 Applicant :- Jata Shankar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Ref: Order on Criminal Misc. Condonation Application No.1 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA appearing for the State.
The delay condonation application has been moved for condoning the delay in the filing the present recall application against the order dated 25.1.2017 Sufficient cause has been shown in paragraph nos.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.
The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned in filing the recall application..
The application is accordingly disposed off.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 IA Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 657 of 2009 Applicant :- Jata Shankar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Chandra Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.C.SSrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State- Sri Abhinav Prasad and Sri Anuj Kumar learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 3925 of 2008, arising out Case Crime No. 313 of 2008 (State Vs. Jata Shankar Rai & Others), under sections 419, 420,Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.on the basis of compromise dated 6.11.2007.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of proceedings of the present case a compromise has arrived at between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit filed in this 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Sri Anuj Kumar, 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 paragraph nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 wherein it has been specifically stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.It is next contended that opposite party no.2 has also died.The compromise application has been considered and decided by the court below vide order dated 23.1.2014 which has also been perused by this Court.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise dated 6.11.2007 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of this 482 Cr.P.C. application) 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 6.11.2007 certified copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-4) to the affidavit filed in support of this 482 Cr.P.C. 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 482 Cr.P.C. application is accordingly, allowed.
In view of the above,the entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 3925 of 2008, arising out Case Crime No. 313 of 2008 (State Vs. Jata Shankar Rai & Others), under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mahndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar is hereby quashed.
There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 IA Order Date :- 25.9.2019 IA