Single judge upheld quashing of summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mentioning inter-se compromise between applicant parties and lack of complainant interest to proceed.
Impugned summoning order and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.138 of 2017 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. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16745 of 2018
Applicant :- Dr. Devendra Kumar And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 13.03.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.138 of 2017 (Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava vs. Dr. Devendra Kumar and others), u/s 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun.
Shri Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate filed his power today along with affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard applicants' counsel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
The submission of applicants' counsel is that matter has been compromised amicably in between the parties and there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them. It has also been submitted that in fact an application was also moved in the court below along with the affidavit that he did not want to press the complaint and the same ought to be dismissed but somehow the same could not be done there. Attention of the Court was drawn to the contents of affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2, in which also the factum of compromise has been affirmed and the disinclination of opposite party no.2 complainant to proceed against the accused has been expressed.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that as the opp. party no.2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicants is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.
The counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 too expressed his complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the accusedapplicants and has submitted that he has instructions not to oppose this application. The counsel in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings quashed.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
SCC 677]
Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the court's process may be averted. Even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. A criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial dispute has been found to be the proceedings of the same class where the inherent jurisdiction of this court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them. There are many other litigations which may also fall in the same class even though they do not arise out of matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations which do not have grave and deleterious social fallouts may also be settled between the parties. In such matters also when parties approached the court jointly with the prayer to put an end to the criminal litigations in which they had formerly locked their horns, or if the record or the mediation centre's report indicates a rapprochement in between the parties, the Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power and terminate the pending proceedings. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon to depose in the court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a futile exercise in vain and the precious time of court is attended with nothing except a cruel wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are the offences against the State and the inter-se compromise between the litigants cannot be countenanced with and the court despite the rapprochement arrived at in between the parties, would still not like to terminate the prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes of very grave nature entailing far reaching deleterious ramifications against the society. In those matters, the courts do not encourage either mediation or a compromise through negotiation and even the Apex Court has carved out exceptions and did not approve the quashing of non-compoundable offences regardless of their gravity. The Courts have to be discreet and circumspect and must see whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is
indeed serving the ends of justice or to the contrary defeating the same. In the wake of the compromise arrived at between the parties inter-se if the proceedings of lower court are still allowed to go on, it is apparent that the same shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process. The dockets of the pending cases are already bursting on their seams and the lower Courts must be allowed to engage themselves in more fruitful judicial exercise and not be saddled with matters like the one at hand whose fate is already sealed.
In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice and avert the abuse of court's process the impugned proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed forthwith. The same therefore, are hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 14.5.2018 M. Kumar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings given the parties' inter-se compromise.
Whether continuation of non-compoundable offence proceedings constitutes abuse of process after mutual settlement.
Whether the quashing serves the ends of justice and averts futile litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherExplained¶12
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationExplained¶13
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersExplained¶15
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶16
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶16
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶18
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Devendra Kumar And 3 Ors
State Of U.P.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
