The court allowed an application to quash criminal complaint proceedings under sections 504, 323 IPC, and SC/ST Act based on a compromise agreement between parties, holding it a private dispute without moral turpitude.
The entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 455 of 2002 under sections 504, 323 IPC and SC/ST Act 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. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37667 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Alias Lala Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Pradeep Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 455 of 2002 (Raj Kumari Vs. Rajendra and others), under sections 504, 323 IPC section 3(10)(11) SC/ST Act, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Dehat in the light of compromise dated 01.10.2019 arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel on behalf of applicant submits that both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other and withdraw the complaint pending against the applicant before the court. The present case is a no injury injury. A compromise/notary affidavit dated 01.10.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.
Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 does not dispute the authenticity/correctness of the compromise and stated that and the opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise and have amicably settled their dispute.
Both the learned counsel for the respective parties jointly stated that in view of compromise affidavit dated 01.10.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit filed in support of present 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 pre-dominatingly 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 01.10.2019 which has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit filed in support of present 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 application is accordingly, allowed .
The entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 455 of 2002 (Raj Kumari Vs. Rajendra and others), under sections 504, 323 IPC section 3(10)(11) SC/ST Act, Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Dehat, are quashed in the light of compromise dated 01.10.2019 arrived at between the parties.
Order Date :- 1.11.2019/Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire proceeding of a criminal complaint under sections 504, 323 IPC and SC/ST Act can be quashed in light of a post-facto compromise between parties.
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings where the offence is personal and not heinous, even if the offence involves a special statute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶9
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Singh Alias Lala Babu
State of U.P.
Raj Kumari
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
