Allowed

Mahant Jitendra Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024A482/25235/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed an application for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since the parties had amicably settled the dispute over theft from a donation box, continuing the trial would be an exercise in futility. The proceedings arising under Sections 506 and 461 IPC were quashed.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in Case No. 10509 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Mahant Jitendra Das) arising from Crime No. 258 of 2021 under Sections 506 and 461 IPC have been quashed.

Mahant Jitendra Das vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152392 Court No. 78

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

Application U/S 482 No. 25235 of 2024

¶4

Mahant Jitendra Das … Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

State of U.P. & Another … Opposite Parties

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶9

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prashant Singh, Advocate on behalf of private opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 10509 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Mahant Jitendra Das), arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 506 and 461 IPC, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 14.03.2022, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise executed between the parties on 15.10.2022.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the parties settled their dispute out of the Court by way of compromise dated 15.10.2022, which has been verified by the court concerned on 30.05.2024. Certified copy of compromise as well as proceedings of verification is filed to compromise the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 461 of I.P.C., which is annexed as Annexure Nos. 6 and 7 of the this application. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to theft of money from the donation box of the temple. On being arrived at

¶12

mutual consent, both the parties have come to terms and decided to settle their dispute, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending the present case be finally decided.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also submits that as the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have already arrived at amicable settlement on 15.10.2022, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant.

¶14

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶15

Present matter is related to offence punishable under Sections 506 and 461 IPC, both the parties entered into an amicable settlement, and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and has jointly submitted that in the interest of justice the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

¶16

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58)

¶17

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.."

¶18

Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ].

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16)

¶21

"16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶22

16.2. 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.

¶23

16.3. 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.

¶24

16.4. While the inherent poser 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.

¶25

16.5. 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.

¶26

16.6. 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 or 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.

¶27

3 of 5

¶28

16.7. 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶29

16.8. Criminal Cases involving offences which arise 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.

¶30

16.9. 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 case oppression and prejudice; and

¶31

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence 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."

¶32

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed .

¶33

The entire proceedings relating to proceedings of Case No. 10509 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Mahant Jitendra Das), arising out of Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 506 and 461 IPC, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶34

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by the applicant. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

¶35

4 of 5

¶36

The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) Order Date :- 19.09.2024 MAA/-

¶38

5 of 5

¶39

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahant Jitendra Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahant Jitendra Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramchandra vs State of Up

Jagdish @ Jaggi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Tajuddin and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotelal Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirmala Devi and Others vs State of Up and Another