Ku. Aanchal Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 261 of 2017 Ku. Aanchal Yadav D/o Late Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years R/o 275 Vivekanand Nagar, Ratnabandha Road, Police Station Dhamtari, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Uday Singh Thakur S/o Shri Komal Singh Thakur, Aged About 55 Years R/o E 178, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Pandri, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For the Petitioner : Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1/ State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate.

For Respondent No.2 : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

18.09.2017 1.

Heard.

2.

This petition has been brought by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings, initiated on the basis of a complaint made by complainant/ respondent No.2 - Uday Singh Thakur, by exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

3.

On the complaint made by respondent No.2, the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 292(D), 384 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 6489 of 2014. During the pendency of the case,

respondent No.2/ the complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioner/ accused and both have resolved their disputed amicably. 4.

Respondent No.2 was examined by the Additional Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. He has stated on oath that he has given a consent for this compromise without fear, favour or influence and he wishes that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be withdrawn. 5.

The 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.

1. (2012) 10 SCC 303

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 pre-dominatingly civil favour 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. In this category of cases, 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and for this reason no purpose would be served if the petitioner is continued to be prosecuted by the State, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 292 (D), 384 and 201 of IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 6489 of 2014 are hereby quashed.

7.

In view of above, this petition stands disposed off at the motion stage. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi