Allahabad High Court
Jagroop Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25328 of 2019 Applicant :- Jagroop Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Pandey Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2 after taking N.O.C. from Sri Atul Pandey who was earlier engaged as counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 269 of 2015 as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No. 232 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur as well as other entire proceedings of the above-noted case pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-II (Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act), District Rampur.
As per F.I.R., occurrence has taken place on 20.08.2015 at about 5:30 p.m. when the accused side is said to have abused and assaulted the complainant side and and threatened to kill him using caste indicative words.
From the side of O.P. No. 2, Counter-Affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated in para 10 that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the criminal prosecution of the accused applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing but could not controvert the fact that compromise has arrived at between the parties.
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, 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 as there being remote possibility of any conviction.
In view of above, this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge-sheet No. 269 of 2015 as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No. 232 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur as well as other entire proceedings of the above-noted case pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-II (Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act), District Rampur stands quashed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 A. Mandhani