Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2156 (ALL)

Akhtar Ali v. State of U. P.

2019-09-17

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 25.1.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3785 of 2015, (Usha Devi vs. Akhtar Ali and Others) under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Mehndawal, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M. Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it was a dispute between both side which led filing of complaint against accused Akhtar Ali, Sukurunnisha alias Sakurunnisha, Rizwana Khatoon, Sabana Khatoon, Gulsana Khatoon, Parma Devi and Nirja Devi wherein complainant Smt. Usha Devi was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and her witnesses were examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, a summoning order dated 15.1.2012, for offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against Akhtar Ali, Sukurunnisha alias Sakurunnisha, Rizwana Khatoon, Sabana Khatoon, Gulsana Khatoon, Parma Devi was passed, which is pending as Complaint Case No. 345 of 2011 (Usha Devi vs. Akhtar Ali and Others) of P.S. Mehndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Parties have entered in compromise, which is at Page No. 24 wherein both sides has mentioned about their compromise. Thereafter, an application dated 22.9.2012 was moved by complainant Usha Devi before Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, for ending proceeding of criminal complaint case but the same is still pending and no order over it has been passed. Hence, in view of law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 623, the proceeding be ended. 4. Sri. Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State is having no objection over it. 5. Paragraph No. 57 of the order passed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra) is quoted as below:- “57. 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. 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. This summoning order is for offences punishable under Section 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. wherein both side have entered in compromise and complainant does not want to proceed with her complaint, hence, this case is within the purview of above law of Apex Court. 7. Accordingly, for the end of justice, this application is being allowed and proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3785 of 2015 (Usha Devi vs. Akhtar Ali and Others) under Sections- 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Mehndawal, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M. Sant Kabir Nagar, is being dismissed.