This crim. app. sought quashing of complaint and summons order based on an inter-parties compromise. The court found the dispute settled with payment agreed, ruling continuation would be an abuse of process and serve no purpose.
Quashed the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5885 of 2017 and the summoning order dated 4.12.2018.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14277 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramesh Chand Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Triloki Singh
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Triloki Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5885 of 2017 (Vikas Vs. Ramesh Chand and another) under Sections 452, 323, 504,506 IPC, Police Station Sector 24 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as summoning order dated 4.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar in terms of compromise.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. Amount Rs. 4,00,000/- agreed between the parties has also been paid. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (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 has been settled, opposite party no.2 has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in noncompoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
Since the dispute between the parties has 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .
The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 5885 of 2017 (Vikas Vs. Ramesh Chand and another) under Sections 452, 323, 504,506 IPC, Police Station Sector 24 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as summoning order dated 4.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019 Mohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings arising from a settled private dispute should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of proces of law after a compromise.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC upon settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶7
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶7
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶7
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Chand Sharma And Another
State Of Up
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
