Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Indra Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 17.5.2013 filed in case crime no. 26 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(i)x of SC/ST Act, P.S. Todifatehpur, District Jhansi as well as entire proceedings of Special S.T. No. 251 of 2016 (State Vs. Prince Yadav @ Manavendra and others).
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that parties have entered into compromise which has been filed today through supplementary affidavit and has been verified by the court below which is annexed at page 10 to 12 of the affidavit. Now the informant/opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the prosecution of accused-applicant, hence entire proceedings may be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding.
As per F.I.R. the prosecution case is that accused-applicant had assaulted the informant's daughter-in-law as well as her daughter and thrown them down on the ground. Jewellery which they were wearing, had been snatched and abused using caste indicative words. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(i)x of SC/ST Act.
It would be pertinent to refer here the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, which is as follows:-
"61. 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 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 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."
Since both the parties have now entered into compromise, therefore, in view of law laid down in Gian Singh's case, this being a dispute between the two sides, which is of private nature, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserve to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceeding pending, there being no possibility of conviction.
Order Date :- 10.2.2021 A.P. Pandey