AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinay Joshi, J
Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. The accused of Regular Criminal Case No.1919 of 2017 pending on
the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur has approached for quashment of First Information Report No.80 of 2017 dated 28/02/2017
registered at Sakkardara Police Station and for termination of concerned criminal proceeding.
The applicant contended that during the course of proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled in between the parties and therefore to
maintain the harmony, he prayed to quash the proceedings by way of invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in terms of section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Codeâ€). It reveals that a victim girl aged 20 years had lodged report dated 28/02/2017
with concerned Police of Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur alleging that on 27/02/2017 around 9.30 a.m. the applicant/accused caught her hand,
forcibly pulled her at his person and by holding hairs dragged her to some extent. Accordingly, the crime was registered against the applicant/ accused
for commission of offence punishable under sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, chargeÂsheet was filed
against applicant/accused. Itis informed that Trial Court has framed charge and the case is pending for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The learned counsel appearing for applicant/ accused would submit that both parties are familiar to each other and they decided to settle their
dispute amicably to maintain good relations. It is submitted that the incident for which applicant is chargeÂsheeted, is of personal nature meaning
thereby it is not against the public at large nor it is heinous one. Therefore, he prayed to quash the F.I.R. as well as criminal case. The applicant/
accused submitted that framing of charge would not come in the way of this Court for invoking powers under section 482 of the Code, and for that
purpose relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2014 (6) SCC 406. Precisely this
criminal application has been filed under section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceeding on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
The informant girl filed affidavit dated 28/09/2018 by which she contended that the matter is settled and she has noobjection to quash the F.I.R. as
well as criminal proceeding. On last date i.e. on 22/10/2018 the informant girl appeared in Court and reiterated about amicable settlement between the
parties. The order of this Court dated 22/10/2018 reflects that the factum of settlement was verified and recorded.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor neither disputed the factual aspect nor questioned the genuineness of settlement. He resisted the
application only on technical ground that, since the Trial Court has framed charge, the powers under section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked.
Precisely, he would submit that criminal case has travelled much till framing of charge and therefore the inherent powers cannot be exercised at such
belated stage. In support of said contention, he placed reliance on reported case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in 2012 (9)
SCC 460.
The short question falls for consideration is about competency of this Court to invoke inherent powers in terms of section 482 of the Code at the
stage when charge has been already framed by Trial Court. The plain reading of section 482 of theCode nowhere restricts or puts limitation on the
powers of this Court in any manner. The object of section 482 of the Code is duel i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or to secure the
ends of justice. The nonÂobstance clause conveys that the inherent powers of this Court are unfettered meaning thereby has not been limited or
restricted by any criteria. While entertaining the application for quashment of criminal proceedings one has to be guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of powers. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accordance with the guidelines enÂgrafted i.e. to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any Court. No doubt it
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and has no straight jacket formula or criteria. While quashing the proceedings, the Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings in the given facts and
circumstances.
Coming to the short point of resistance one has to see whether the inherent powers can be invoked even after framing of charge by Court. We
have gone through the above referred case of Narinder Singh wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the said issue in the light of
settlement between the parties. In the said case, offence was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was settled. In
that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expresses (para 31) about the stage of settlement and exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. It is
ruled that if the settlement is arrived immediately after the incident, then the High Court may be liberal but when the charge is framed and evidence is
still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of other
circumstances. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically approved to utilize the inherent powers of this Court even after framing of charge
subject to the facts and circumstances of case. To put it differently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed that there is no limit on the inherent powers
of High Court, though charge has been framed. In the light of said decision, we have anxiously gone through the above referred case of Amit Kapoor
on which the prosecution placed reliance. We are unable to find any ratio in said judgment which could convey that after framingof charge, the High
Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its inherent power in terms of section 482 of the Code. In paraÂ19 of the judgment, it is expressed that when
charge is framed, the Court should cautiously exercise said powers. Thus, the said case does not lay down any general preposition limiting powers of
quashment after framing of charge.
We may refer Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC
In said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the powers of quashment are different from powers of criminal court of compounding
offences under section320 of the Code. The powers of quashment may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute depending upon the
facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Thus, it is
abundant clear that inherent powers of this Court are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised cautiously depending
upon the facts of each case. While exercising said powers one must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with thecriminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite amicable
settlement. Rather the inherent powers are possessed by this Court to exercise the same in appropriate cases so as to avoid further futile exercise of
conducting trial despite settlement and also to maintain the harmony between both sides. It appears that whole idea behind investing inherent powers
with this Court is to do complete and substantial justice for which the Court exists. In case at hand, the offence is about outraging modesty of a
woman which is of personal nature. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that it has far reaching societal impact. By the time, the parties have
settled the matter therefore we can very well foresee that in the situation if they are compelled to go on with trial, it would nothing but wastage of
Court hours as well as hardship to the parties. In the circumstances this is a fit case where the Court should step in and exercise inherent powers for
quashment of F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceedings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that such dead litigation should not breath furthermore.
Hence, by allowing this application, we quash F.I.R. No.80 of 2017 dated 28/02/2017 lodged at Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur as well as
terminate the criminal case bearing R.C.C. No.1919 of 2017 (State of Maharashtra v. Ashish Ashok Dhavale) pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, having effect of acquittal of applicant/accused. Inform the concerned accordingly.