Mohd. Yusuf 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 10.04.2009 in Case No.1162 of 2017, State vs. Yusuf, passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate,

Roorkee, District Haridwar on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

In the instant case F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. on 12.04.2008. After investigation, a final report was submitted in the

matter but the court while rejecting the final report summoned the petitioner to answer the accusation under Sections 465 and 468 I.P.C. The order

rejecting the final report recorded that Investigating Officer had found that the matter was earlier got investigated by Lokayukt and nothing was found

in it.

Today leaned counsel for the parties informed that the 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 petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2.

The petitioner no.1 Mohd. Yusuf is present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mohd. Safdar and respondent no.2

Aehtasham is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Parikshit Saini. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 state

before the Court that they have amicably settled the dispute.

Petitioner has been summoned for forgery for the purpose of cheating. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would argue that in fact, the order,

summoning the petitioner, is not valid because what has been looked into by the court below was the evidence filed along with the protest petition,

which could not have been done. Learned counsel for the parties would argue that petitioner and respondent no.2 are from the same village. The

dispute was nothing but in connection with the election of the Gram Pradhan, which has been settled now.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.1162 of 2017, State vs. Yusuf, pending in the court of 1st Additional Civil

Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee are hereby quashed.

Compounding Application No.1058 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.