Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42793 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohd. Yunus Qureshi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
An affidavit filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Devesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State- respondent.
This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No. 218/2008, dated 01.07.2008, submitted in Case No. 1982 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 1010 of 2008, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi on the basis of compromise.
A copy of compromise deed dated 05.11.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, 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 affidavit dated 18.11.2019 wherein in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 it has been stated that applicants and the opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise and have amicably settled their dispute.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of present 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 05.11.2019, a copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-3) to the affidavit filed in support of present 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 present application is accordingly, allowed.
The entire proceeding of Case No. 1982 of 2008 (State Vs. Mohd. Sazid Qureshi & others) pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi arising out of Case Crime No. 1010 of 2008, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, are quashed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Arti