Smt Sheetal Juneja v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 87 of 2018 Smt Sheetal Juneja W/o Shri Amit Juneja Aged About 36 Years Caste Mona Panjabi, Permanent R/o Purani Basti, Kharsia P/s And Tahsil Kharsia And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. Of The P/s Kharisa Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

2. Amit Juneja S/o Shri Radhakishan Juneja, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Business, R/o Samadhiya Colony Nayapara In Front Of Anmol Vihar, Taraganj Lashkar Gwalior ( Madhya Pradesh ) ---- Respondents For petitioner - Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State -Shri Suryakant Mishra, PL. For respondent No.2/accused-Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 6/02/2018 1.

Instant petition is against the order dated 12/07/2010 whereby an application filed under Section 320 sub-section 2 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed to compound the case under section 498-A of the IPC. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the complainant wherein on her complaint case was registered under section 498-A and 323 of the IPC against the accused Amit Juneja and in such case charge sheet was filed in Crime No.272/2007 under Section 498-A of IPC. Subsequently, during pendency of the petition the issue was compromised. Therefore, after the compromise was arrived at between the parties, consequently proceeding before the court below may be quashed.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/accused support the same.

4.

Perusal of the record would show that statement of the complainant was recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 30/01/2018 wherein she has stated that she do not want to further prosecute her complaint which was registered in Crime No.272/2007 and the case was bearing number 1897/2009 and the case may be quashed. 5.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 predominatingly civil flavour 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.

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.

6.

Further, in case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. decided on 04.10.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 their Lordship again reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions : "15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : (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 recognises 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.

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 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;

(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. 7.

The statement of the victim would show that she has compounded the offence and she do not want any further action against the respondent No.2/accused Amit Juneja. Further parties have placed on record till today case is pending for evidence and copy of the order sheet would show that case is fixed for 23/02/2018. Considering the fact that case is pending and compromise has been arrived at between the parties wherein victim is not interested to prosecute the case and also applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding which are pending before the criminal court under section 498-A of IPC in Criminal Case No.1897/2009. 8.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No.1897/2009 pending before JMFC, Kharsia, District Raigarh which has originated from the FIR bearing Crime No.272/2007 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2/accused Amit Juneja is acquitted of the charges under section 498-A of IPC.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri