Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35705 of 2018 Applicant :- Raghuveer Saran Agrawal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mithlesh Kumar Shukla, Avanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsels for the opposite party nos. 2,3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 20.5.1996, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case S.S.T. No. 10 of 1996, arising out of Case Crime no. 157A of 1995, under Section 395 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Agra.
A compromise application No. 10 of 1996 dated 13.9.2018 has been filed annexing therewith a certified copy of the compromise dated 13.9.2018 duly signed by the parties.
Sri Mithlesh Kumar Shukla, Avanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsels for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 do not dispute the authenticity/correctness of the compromise and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the short counter affidavit dated 3.10.2018, wherein it has been stated that revisionist and the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 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 13.9.2018 (Annexure-CCA-1 to the compromise application dated 13.9.2018) 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 30.8.2016 certified copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-6) to the compromise 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 application is accordingly, allowed.
The summoning order dated 20.5.1996, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case S.S.T. No. 10 of 1996, arising out of Case Crime no. 157A of 1995, under Section 395 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Agra, are quashed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018/Faridul