Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute due to a compromise settlement between the parties, holding it met the ends of justice.
Quashing of State v. Dinesh and others (S.T. no.133 of 2006) pending in 1st Additional District Judge, Deoria.
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. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5378 of 2019
Applicant :- Dinesh Pathak And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Joint affidavit filed by Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. no.133 of 2006(State Vs. Dinesh and others) arising out of case crime no.401A of 2004 under Sections 323, 506, 307, 147, 336 IPC, Police Station-Salempur, District-Deoria, pending in the court of 1st, Additional District Judge, Deoria.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants and opposite party no.2 belongs to the same stake of one family and on account of some misunderstandings between them, cross-case was registered as Case Crime No.401 of 2004 and 401A of 2004 of which S.T. No.132 of 2006 and 133 of 2006 is pending in the court of Ist, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria. It is further contended that parties have wiped out their differences and disputes and have come to terms. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise annexed as Annexure-3 to the application and is signed by injured of both the parties. The said compromise is being verified by learned trial court on 26.09.2018. This fact of compromise has also been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND
OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceedings of S.T. no.133 of 2006(State Vs. Dinesh and others) arising out of case crime no.401A of 2004 under Sections 323, 506, 307, 147, 336 IPC, Police Station-Salempur, DistrictDeoria, pending in the court of 1st, Additional District Judge, Deoria is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 14.2.2019 Sumit S
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 506, 307, 147, 336 IPC should be quashed in light of a compromise between parties.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mandate quashing of criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute where a settlement has been reached.
Whether the compromise between the applicant and the opposite party justifies the quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian SinghReferred¶11
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Dimpey GujralReferred¶12
Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs. Union Territory Through Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697 · Who else cites this
Narendra SinghReferred¶13
Narendra Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6) SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra YadavReferred¶15
Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653 · Who else cites this
D. Parbatbhai AahirReferred¶16
D.Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others. Vs. State of Gujarat And Another
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Referred¶18
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh Pathak And 5 Others
State Of Up And Another
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
