The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 324 and 504 IPC. The judgment held that in view of the amicable settlement between parties, quashing proceedings was necessary to restore peace and avoid waste of time.
The entire criminal proceedings of the case were 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. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6596 of 2018
Applicant :- Phirasat @ Kaluwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Sri B.L. Jha, counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the case no. 742 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 100 of 1999, u/s 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Kameri, District Rampur and order dated 19.5.2000.
Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.K. Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the dispute between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 is purely of private nature and the applicant is facing trial u/s 324/504 IPC. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectful persons of the society both the parties have entered into compromise, they resided in the same locality and in this behalf an application for compounding offence on the basis of compromise was filed before the court below on 10.2.2018 however the application was rejected on the ground that offence u/s 324 is not compoundable.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 .
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, the opposite party has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be quashed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the joint affidavit filed today on behalf of the parties.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands.
Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by
permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in terms of compromise.
Order Date :- 6.3.2018 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under non-compoundable provisions can be quashed on account of settlement between parties.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash proceedings to restore peace in a case arising from a motley cause.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
(2012), 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B. S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred¶9
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
(2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Phirasat @ Kaluwa
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
