Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2593 (ALL)

RAJEEV KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-08-26

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and for the respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 2. The respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 filed a joint affidavit and stated therein that the parties have settled their disputes and on the basis of that compromise, Deep Mala, the daughter of the respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 are living separately. The respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and has stated that the proceedings of the criminal case maybe dropped. 3. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as follows: “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Curt on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” The principles of law propounded in B. Section Joshi’s case (supra) has been applied with approval in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650. 4. In CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 , the Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court quashing the criminal complaint after the civil action had been compromised between the parties. No doubt, Duncans Agro case (supra) was in regard to the offence under Section 420 IPC, which was compoundable but the principles of quashment of the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise was evolved. Recently, in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and others, 2009 (9) ADJ 566 (SC), the Apex Court reiterated the principles propounded in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) and held that if a compromise takes place between the parties with regard to a non-compoundable offence and the dispute is of private nature, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power, may quash the proceedings of the criminal case. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, it would be a futile exercise to proceed with the criminal case No. 372 of 2008 (State v. Rajeev Kumar and others) arising out of crime No. 940 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 324 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Dhampur, district Bijnore, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnore. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed. —————