Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2933 (ALL)

Jitendra Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-09-16

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.K. Singh for the O.P. No.2 and the learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 CrPC is preferred for quashing the summoning order dated 23.6.2015 passed in Complaint Case no. 660 of 2014, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 3. Pursuant to order dated 4.9.2015, a joint supplementary affidavit of applicant no.1 and O.P. No.2 has been filed today along with their respective photographs, wherein it is stated that as against an amount of Rs.2 lac, an amount of Rs.1.65 lac has been paid to O.P. No.2 in cash and remaining Rs.35,000/- has also been paid to O.P. No.2 in cash and that now nothing remains to be paid to O.P. no.2 and O.P. no.2 has stated that with the entire payment of Rs.2 lac to him, the dispute between him and the applicants does not survive and the pending proceedings be quashed. 4. The parties are also present today and have been identified by their respective counsels. The O.P. no.2 has also stated to the Court that the entire amount has been paid to him and he is no longer desirous to prosecute the complaint and same be dismissed in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . 5. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 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. 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." 6. There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the present dispute neither involves moral turpitude, nor is heinous in nature having any societal impact, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement not forbidden under law. 7. In this view of the matter, to permit the petitioner to face the wrath of prosecution in the face of compromise, would be an abuse of the process of the court, as no evidence would be forthcoming to nail the applicants. Thus the pending proceedings before the court below would be an abuse of the process of the court which is liable to be quashed. 8. The application is allowed. The proceedings of Complaint Case no. 660 of 2014, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, are hereby quashed. 9. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned for further consequential action.