HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 37830 of 2019
Applicant :- Cons. 3008 Javed Khan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2622 of 2011 and new Criminal Case No. 211 of 2012 (State Vs. Mohammad Javed) under Section 354 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (11) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2009 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated that O.P. No. 2 has entered into compromise with the applicant and the affidavit to that effect has been annexed in para 3 of which it has been clearly stated by O.P. No. 2 that the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2622 of 2011 and new Criminal Case No. 211 of 2012 (State Vs. Mohammad Javed) under Section 354 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (11) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar be quashed as the parties have entered into compromise.
Learned A.G.A. has not opposed the prayer of quashing as the compromise-affidavit has been filed by the parties.
Perused the F.I.R.
As per F.I.R., the occurrence is said to have taken place on 26.02.2009 at about 3:00 p.m. when applicant is said to have caught hold O.P. No. 2 and told that he would marry her and would take care of her children and got her close to his body. In this case, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against accused applicant.
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.”
After having perused the contents of the F.I.R., I am convinced that the dispute between the two sides appears to be of private nature and looking to the fact that this case under Section 354 I.P.C. is compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. as well as under case of Gian Singh (Supra), therefore, In view of the law laid down in above cited case, the proceedings in the present case are liable to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present proceeding pending, there being remote possibility of any conviction.
In view of above, this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2622 of 2011 and new Criminal Case No. 211 of 2012 (State Vs. Mohammad Javed) under Section 354 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (11) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2009 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar stands quashed on the basis of compromise done between the parties.
Order Date :- 20.1.2020