Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13923 of 2007 Applicant :- Vijendra Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh,Pankaj Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arjun Prasad Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Katyayani, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
This present 482 application has been filed for setting aside and quash the impugned charge sheet No. 86 dated 05.06.2006 (Crime No. 46/06) under sections 147/148/149/307 IPC submitted by police of P.S. Sahawar, District Etah and the consequent criminal case registered in pursuant thereto, being criminal case no. 14/2007 (State Vs. Vijendra Singh and 5 others) under sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, P.S. Sahawar, District Etah pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, District Etah on the basis of impugned summoning order dated 17.01.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah.
Learned counsel on behalf of applicant states that applicant nos. 1 to 3 are real brothers while the remaining applicants are also resident of immediate vicinity and so is the position with the opposite party no. 2 and the aforementioned injured persons on his side. It is further submitted that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the said impugned charge sheet. They are peace loving persons and are amicably living alongwith the opposite party no. 2 including the aforementioned two injured persons on his side in the same locality and with the passage of time, both the parties have also mutually settled all of their disputes including the present case outside the court and accordingly neither said opposite party no. 2 nor aforementioned injured witnesses on his side, besides other witnesses of fact want to prosecute the applicants any morein connection with the present case in question and accordingly not only both the aforementioned injured persons namely Kalyan Singh @ Kaloo son of Vijendra Singh (real brother of opposite party no. 2) and Munesh Singh but almost all the remaining witnesses of fact have on their own appeared before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashganj, Etah and have filed their affidavit, thereby disowning the entire prosecution case and further praying for discharging them from appearing as a witness in connection with the present case in question. A copy of the application and affidavits of alleged injured have been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
Learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of the application and affidavits of alleged injured namely Kalyan Singh @ Kaloo, Munesh Singh, PW Ravindra Singh and PW Rajendra Singh filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah dated 27.01.2007, 12.02.2007, 28.02.2007 and 12.04.2007 annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of present application, 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 in view of the application and affidavits of alleged injured namely Kalyan Singh @ Kaloo, Munesh Singh, PW Ravindra Singh and PW Rajendra Singh filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah dated 27.01.2007, 12.02.2007, 28.02.2007 and 12.04.2007 annexed as Annexure No. 6 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 application is accordingly, allowed.
The charge sheet No. 86 dated 05.06.2006 (Crime No. 46/06) under sections 147/148/149/307 IPC submitted by police of P.S. Sahawar, District Etah and the consequent criminal case registered in pursuant thereto, being criminal case no. 14/2007 (State Vs. Vijendra Singh and 5 others) under sections 147/148/149/307 IPC, P.S. Sahawar, District Etah pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, District Etah on the basis of impugned summoning order dated 17.01.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah, are quashed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Arti