Court No. - 21

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28217 of 2016

Applicant :- Asha Devi And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Man Mohan Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code has been filed praying for quashing of the summoning

order dated 12.6.2015, cognizanze order dated 4.1.2016 and

NBW dated 17.8.2016 and entire proceedings of Complaint

Case No. 679 of 2014, u/s 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4

Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Unju, District Sant Ravi Das

Nagar, Bhadohi pending in the court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur.

The court having regard to the nature of dispute and the

possibility of an amicable settlement, referred the matter to the

Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where the parties have

arrived at a written settlement dated 28.3.2017 in terms

whereof, all their subsisting disputes stood settled. The parties

have specifically agreed that all their criminal matters shall also

stand terminated, including the one in hand.

A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has laid down the

principles governing the exercise of power by High Court under

Section 482 CrPC in cases where the parties have arrived at

amicable settlement as follows: -

"61. …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 FIR may be exercised where the

offender and the 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 a serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender

in relation to the offences under special statutes like the

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 a

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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in

its view, because of the compromise between the offender and

the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 p