##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40231 of 2022

Chhatrapal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hare Krishna Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Yogesh Kumar Tiwari

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for

the State, learned counsel for the first informant and perused

the material on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for

quashing the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 148 of

2019 (State Vs. Chhatrapal) arising out of Case Crime No.55 of

2019 under Sections 420, 494, 354-Gha, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C.,

pending before leanred Additional District Judge-9th, District

Jhansi pursuant to the compromise entered into between the

parties.

3. Vide order dated 13.03.2023, the co-ordinate Bench of this

Court had referred the matter before the concerned trial below

for verification of the compromise entered into between the

parties. The learned trial Court vide its report dated

31.03.2023 has reported that the matter has been compromised

between the parties. copy of which report is on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR had

come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some

misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With

passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences

and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has

also been verified by the learned trial Court. They realise that

there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that

no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant

do not dispute the correctness of the submission made by

learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the

A482 No. 40231 of 2022

2

documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no

objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the

pending proceedings before the court below be quashed in the

light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v.

State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held

that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a

compromise/settlement, between the parties, then

notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC

there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the

proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent

powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in

para-61 that;

"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