Himmat Abhilash Tak @APPELLANT@Hash Dulhe Singh

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case No.21/2002 (Dulhe Singh Vs.

Himmat Abhilash), whereby the trial court vide order dated 28.03.2018 has refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under

Sections 175, 177 and 477-A IPC as the same is not compoundable.

In the instant case the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint in the trial court and the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Section 175, 177 and 477-A IPC wherein the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. During the pendency of

the trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and settled their dispute amicably, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may be terminated. The trial court vide order

dated 28.03.2016 has refused to attest the compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 175, 177 and 477-A IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the said proceedings pending against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the respondent No.1 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and resolved their

dispute amicably, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 175, 177 and 477-A IPC. It is also

argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 175, 177 and

477-A IPC because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and

the respondent No.1 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Section 175, 177 and

477-A IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is now admitted that the dispute between the parties has already been settled and the respondent No.1 filed an application before the trial court with

a prayer for quashing the prosecution against the petitioner. Today also learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has categorically submitted that the

respondent No.1 does not want to continue the proceedings pending against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 175, 177 and 477-

A IPC as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties. A certified copy of compromise has already been placed on record.  The

Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SCâ€"426, has held as

below:-

“57. 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 pre-dominatingly 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. 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.â€​

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.1 have settled their dispute

and the respondent No.1 does not want to press the charges pending against the petitioner, there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted

in the case pending against him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by

keeping the criminal proceedings pending.

Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case,

wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.21/2002 (Dulhe Singh Vs. Himmat Abhilash) are hereby quashed.

Stay petition is disposed of.