Devraj Dewangan And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Goutam Bhaduri, J

The instant petition is against the order dated 19.09.2017 whereby an application preferred under Section 320 (2) & 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C. to

compound the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. has been dismissed.

The petitioners and respondent No.2 are present in person before the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 & respondent No.2 performed marriage on 11.06.2010. Thereafter,

respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 30.04.2012 against the petitioners, thereby the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the

I.P.C. was registered. Consequent upon such report, an FIR was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. He would further submit

that both the parties have amicably settled their matter and have started living together, consequently the criminal proceedings pending before the

JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Case No.340/2012 may be quashed.

Respondent No.2, who is present before the Court, having been enquired by the State counsel has also affirmed the fact that the settlement has

been arrived at and she do not want to further prosecute the proceedings in criminal case No.340/2012 and she has started living with the petitioner

No.1, therefore, the criminal case No.340/2012, which is pending may be quashed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another 1 has laid down the following principles :

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 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 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 predominatingly 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.

Further, in case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. in criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 their Lordship again

reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions :

The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The

provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement

has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.

While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The

power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High

Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent

an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the

dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity

cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in

nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public

interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They

stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil

flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a

conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-

being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in

declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act

complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Considering the statements made by the parties, which has been cross-checked by the State counsel that the settlement has been arrived at in

between the parties and both the parties are living together as husband & wife and looking to the inter-se relations between the parties and applying

the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served if the proceedings pending in

Criminal Case No.340/2012 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. arising out of crime No.24/12 pending before the Court of JMFC,

Raipur are quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in Criminal Case No.340/2012 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are quashed.

The petitioners are acquitted for the charges leveled against them.

The CRMP stands allowed.