Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise between the applicant and the injured witness in a family dispute involving IPC offences, relying on precedents allowing quashing in such cases.
Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1666 of 2012 arising under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are 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. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 809 of 2020
Applicant :- Beetu Singh Alias Beetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava,Vishnu Kumar Patil
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Srivastava and Mr. Vishnu Kumar Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Ganesh Shankar Patel, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 by filing his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit, which is taken on record as well as perused the materials on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 30th August, 2011, cognizance taking order dated 11th October, 2011 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1666 of 2012 (State Vs. Beetu), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2011, under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationMatsena, District-Firozabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature having arisen over property. The FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. Injuries claimed are wholly exaggerated. There may be some minor injuries as may have been unintentionally caused in the commotion that occurred at the relevant time. In any case the injury report does not represent the true facts. At present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2, namely, Shyamveer and the injured witness, namely, Ramveer do not wish to press charges against the applicants. Both the parties have settled their dispute now.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also filed short counter affidavit, wherein in paragraph nos. 4 to 7 it has been stated as follows:
"4. That it is necessary to mention here that now both the parties have settled their dispute and they have decided that they shall not contested the cases.
5. That opposite party no.2 and injured Ramveer is real uncle of applicant and it is a only family dispute and it is not a heinous offence.
6. That it is well settled principal that where the parties are known to each other and the offence is not grievous in nature and want to resolve their issues and promise to live peaceful then it will be sheer abuse of the process of the law as well as sheer wastage of precious time of Hon'ble Court.
7. That it is necessary to mention here that both the parties has come into compromise and for the purpose they have filed compromised before this Hon'ble Court and they have also ready to quash the aforesaid proceeding on the basis of compromise"
In the joint affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in Court today on behalf of applicant and opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the same has also been reiterated.
Pursuant to the order dated 9th January, 2020, applicant, Beeti Somgj @ Beetu and opposite party no. 2, namely, Shyamveer are present in Court today. They have been identified by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and their signatures have also been verified by him.
On instructions received from opposite party nos.2 and 3, who are informant and injured witness, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ;
2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1666 of 2012 (State Vs. Beetu), arising out of Case Crime No. 160 of 2011, under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Matsena, District-Firozabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Firozabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 18.1.2020 Sushil/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether procession under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed when a compromise has been reached between parties in a family dispute.
Whether Article 14 of the Constitution mandates quashing of criminal proceedings upon settlement in non-grave family offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and AnotherReferred¶18
(2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶19
(2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and OthersReferred¶20
(2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶21
(2012); 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶22
( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherExplained¶23
2013 (83) ACC 278
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Beetu Singh Alias Beetu
State Of U.P.
Shyamveer
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
