High Court allowed Criminal Revision in a Section 498-A case where parties settled amicably. Relying on Gian Singh, Court held continuation would be abuse of process and acquitted applicant, disposing of the revision.
Applicant acquitted from charge under Section 498-A of IPC; Criminal Revision disposed of.
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.
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 81 of 2022
For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate For State : Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer For complainant : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
20.09.2022
Page 2 of 4
Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 9397/2013 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2019.
“57.Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the
Page 3 of 4
same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court Under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
Page 4 of 4
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.”
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether continuation of proceedings despite amicable settlement would be an abuse of process of court requiring acquittal.
Whether High Court can quash criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction even for non-compoundable offences arising out of family dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Samal
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
