HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 34260 of 2019
Applicant :- Onkar @ Tinku
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary Affidavit has been filed today by Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material brought on record.
The instant application under Sectionsection 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1351 of 2019 (SectionState v. [email protected] Onkar) based on charge sheet dated 17.5.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2019, under Sectionsection 354 IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station – Katera, District – Jhansi pending in the court of Special Judge(P)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Jhansi including the cognizance order dated 30.7.2019 in terms of compromise entered between the parties.
In the Supplementary affidavit filed today sworn by opposite party no.2, the deponent of the said affidavit i.e. opposite party no.2 Rais Khan has stated in paragraph 4 that the he is not interested to pursue the matter against the applicant the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and as on date there exist no dispute between the parties and the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.
The Apex Court in the case of SectionGian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, 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 SectionPrevention 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.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 1351 of 2019 (SectionState v. [email protected] Onkar) based on charge sheet dated 17.5.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2019, under Sectionsection 354 IPC and 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station – Katera, District – Jhansi pending in the court of Special Judge(P)/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Jhansi including the cognizance order dated 30.7.2019, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.9.2019