High Court quashed charge sheet and trial proceedings under inherent jurisdiction after parties reached a compromise. Court held offence was personal and conviction remote, continuing trial would abuse process.
Charge sheet No. 9 of 2005 and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2016 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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19398 of 2019
Applicant :- Mohd. Tahir Khan And 03 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 02 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.
By means of this application under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet No. 9 of 2005 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2016 (State vs. Mohd. Tahir Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 986 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Kurebhar, district Sultanpur, pending in the court of Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that now the parties have entered into a compromise and compromise application dated 29.4.2019 has been filed before the trial court, but no order has been passed on the same.
Sri Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 does not dispute the authenticity/correctness of the compromise and has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos.13 & 20 of the short counter affidavit dated 15.5.2019 wherein it has been stated that applicant and the opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise and have amicably settled their dispute and he has no objection, if the proceedings of this case are quashed.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise dated 29.4.2019 (Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application) arrived at between the parties, proceedings pending before the court below
be quashed as the offence was neither heinous nor involved any moral turpitude, rather only personal, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that;
"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 predominatingly civil favour 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."
There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the parties have buried their hatchet under a compromise dated 29.4.2019 a copy of which has been filed as (Annexure-3) to the 482 Cr.P.C. application, authenticity of which is not disputed. The offence is neither heinous nor it involved any moral turpitude, dispute if any was personal, which has now been amicably settled. In view of aforesaid compromise, conviction is ruled out, prosecution of the applicants would be an abuse of the process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed.
The 482 Cr.P.C. application is accordingly, allowed.
The charge sheet No.9 of 2005 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2016 (State vs. Mohd. Tahir Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 986 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Kurebhar, district Sultanpur, pending in the court of Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad, are quashed.
Order Date :- 15.10.2019 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between parties in a private offence.
Whether the continuance of criminal proceedings despite settlement amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶12
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Tahir Khan And 03 Others
State Of Up And 02 Others
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
