Allahabad High Court
Momraj vs State Of Up And Anr on 6 November, 2019
Author: Vivek Kumar Singh
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38990 of 2019 Applicant :- Momraj Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama today in the Court which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.4.2018 in Case Crime No.0083 of 2018 (Criminal Case No.134 of 2019, under Sections 135 of Electricity Act (Amendment) 2003, P.S. Said Nagli, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Amroha.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the electricity dues i.e. amounting to Rs.1,25,631/- has already been deposited by the applicant before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Gajraula (Amroha) pursuant to which letter dated 17.4.20180 has also been issued by the said authority endorsing the receipt of the said amount further mentioning therein that further prosecution of the applicant is not required in the matter, a copy of said letter has been annexed as annexue-4 to this 482 Cr.P.C. application.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 could not dispute the contents of the letter dated 17.4.2018.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of letter dated 17.4.2018 (Annexure-4 to this 482 Cr.P.C. 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 under the letter dated 17.4.2018 copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-4) to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. 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.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application is accordingly, allowed.
The charge sheet dated 10.4.2018 in Case Crime No.0083 of 2018 (Criminal Case No.134 of 2019, under Sections 135 of Electricity Act (Amendment) 2003, P.S. Said Nagli, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Amroha, are quashed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Dev/-