Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 259 of 2019 Revisionist :- Purushottam Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V.P. Singh Kashyap
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Crl. Misc. Case No.1697 of 2013 (Smt. Priti Giri Vs. Purushottam Giri) whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist was dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
Shri V.P. Singh Kashyap has filed counter affidavit dated 7.1.2021 wherein certified copy of the compromise deed dated 19.08.2019 has been annexed. From perusal of the said deed it appears that compromise in between the parties has taken place and they have amicably settled the dispute between them. It is also evident by way of the said deed that the opposite party no.2 has got a lumpsum amount and both the parties have decided to live separately.
Shri Saurabh Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri V.P. Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 does not dispute the authenticity/correctness of the compromise wherein it has been stated that the revisionist 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 19.08.2019 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 as to why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the parties have buried their hatchet under a compromise dated 19.08.2019 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 revision is accordingly, allowed.
Considering the averments of the counter affidavit filed in the present revision, the order impugned dated 04.12.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun in Crl. Misc. Case No.1697 of 2013 (Smt. Priti Giri Vs. Purushottam Giri) is hereby quashed.
There is no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 shiv