Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15958 of 2013 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,J.P. Mishra,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shravan Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shrawann Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.1.2013 as well as entire proceedings registered as Criminal Case No. 692/9 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Vipin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2012 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhaura Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in compliance with the court's order dated 13.5.2019, compromise between the parties has been verified by the trial court and the same has been annexed with supplementary affidavit. Therefore, in view of the said compromise, criminal proceedings need to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed and has admitted that compromise has been entered into between the parties which has been verified.
I have gone through the FIR. According to FIR, the father of the victim married her daughter to the co-accused Vipin on 7.2.2010 and thereafter the accused-applicant along with co-accused Vipin had started harassing her for demand of dowry and one Scorpio car and Rs.2.00 lacs were being demanded. She was beaten also because of the non-fulfilment of the said demand of dowry by the accused-applicant. The injury memo which is at pages 32-33 of the paper book, shows as many as eight injuries were caused to her which were simple in nature except the injury no. 3 which was found to be grievous in nature. He has not annexed the X Ray report of the injury no. 3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the accused applicant along with co- accused under the above-mentioned sections.
Looking to the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and in view of law laid down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, this being an offence of private nature between two sides may be compromised because injuries were also found to be of simple nature and the matter has already been compounded. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"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."
In view of the above, proceedings in Criminal Case No. 692/9 of 2013 (State of U.P. vs. Vipin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2012 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bhaura Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar are hereby quashed.
This application is allowed. Order Date :- 30.7.2019 AU