High Court granted leave to amend petition; meditated settlement; quashed criminal proceedings under IPC sections based on Gian Singh precedent; allowed petition.
Proceedings in complaint case No. 1405 of 2012 under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6224 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dr. Anand Suman Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This criminal misc. writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside the order dated 12.8.2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh dismissing revision no.253 of 2016 (Dr. Anand Suman Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). By the order dated 12.8.2016 of the Revisional Court, the order dated 16.1.2016 passed by the A.C.J.M., Room no.6 Aligarh rejecting the discharge application in Complaint Case no.1405 of 2012 under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligargh (Dr. A.K. Singhal vs. Dr. Anand Suman Singh), has been upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 30.8.2016. In compliance with that order the respondent no. 2, Dr. A.K. Singhal had appeared for settlement of the dispute and an agreement has been entered into between both the sides and the dispute has been resolved amicably. Report of the Mediation Centre dated 6.5.2017 has been sent to this Court. He has further contended that in view of the said compromise between the parties, no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings of complaint case no. 1405 of 2012 (Dr. A.K. Singhal vs. Dr. Anand Suman Singh) continued as there are no chances of the accused being convicted. Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. In the light of the law laid down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 , proceedings in the said case need to be quashed. It is further contended by him that there is no need to issue notice to the respondent separately in the present petition because he has already appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation Centre in pursuance of this court's order which is apparent from the report of the Mediation Centre, Allahabad.
In the complaint made by the respondent no. 2 it was averred that in January 2010 the accused-applicant had approached him at his residence and had borrowed from him an amount of Rs.Four lacs assuring him that the said amount would be returned to him very soon. On the said assurance, the
respondent no. 2 had given him the said amount through cheque of branch of Indian Bank, Marice Road, Aligarh and the said amount was credited in his account. Thereafter, he requested many times for the return of the said amount but the accusedapplicant had returned him only an amount of Rs.Two lacs but did not return the remaining amount of Rs.Two lacs, on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the complainant had to approach the court below and file a complaint case no. 1405 of 2012 in which on the basis of evidence the accused-applicant was summoned under section 406, 504, 506 IPC to face trial. In Gian Singh's case following has been held in paragraph no. 61:-
"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."
Since the parties have entered into a compromise which is evident from the settlement agreement dated 6.5.2017 reached between the parties before Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, it would be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings in the said complaint case be quashed in the light of law laid-down in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings of the said complaint case pending, looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of the accused-applicant being convicted. The proceedings need to be quashed.
In view of the above, proceedings in complaint case No. 1405 of 2012 (Dr. A.K. Singhal Vs. Dr. Anand Suman Singh) under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh are hereby quashed.
This petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018 AU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising from a compoundable dispute should be quashed after a settlement is reached between parties.
Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings without likelihood of conviction amounts to abuse of process of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherExplained¶8
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Dr. Anand Suman Singh
State Of U.P.
Dr. A.K. Singhal
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
