Aehatsham & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed for

quashing the order dated 11.06.2009 in Case No.2969 of 2014 (Old No.2051 of 2009), State vs. Jameel & others and the entire proceedings arising out

of it pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Roorkee on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

In the instant case F.I.R. was lodged on 10.06.2008. According to the F.I.R., in respect of a property belonging to the first informant i.e. respondent

no.2, the co-accused executed an agreement to sale in favour of the petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 knew at the time of this agreement that the

property belongs to respondent no.2 and in this conspiracy the petitioner nos.2 and 3 were also involved. It was done with a view to grab the property

belonging to respondent no.2. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners and three other persons under Sections 420, 467,

468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the parties would urge that the parties are from one of the same village. The dispute arose from political rivalry in the Gram

Pradhan election and now parties have amicably settled the dispute.

A joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is supported by the affidavits of the petitioners and respondent no.2. The

petitioner no.1 Aehatsham, petitioner no.2 Mohtaseen and petitioner no.3 Badar Ahmad @ Badruzama are present in person before this Court, duly

identified by their counsel Mr. Parikshit Saini and respondent no.2 Yakoob is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel

Mr. Mohd. Safdar. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 state before the Court that they have amicably settled the dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.2 both would argue that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled. Now,

continuance of any criminal proceedings would definitely be non productive and would not yield any result to meet ends of justice. Hence, the

proceedings may be quashed.

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon’ble Court, interalia, held as under:

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………………………………………………..

Parties have already settled their dispute amicably. In fact, if the trial proceeds now, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It would not

secure the ends of justice. In fact, interest of justice demands that the criminal case is put to an end. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since

parties have amicably settled their dispute, the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The proceedings of Case No.2969 of 2014, State vs. Jameel & others pending in the court of A.C.J.M.,

Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

Compounding Application No.1057 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.