Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section of the for quashing the entire proceedings for offences under Sections , , , , and Section 3 read with Section , Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J. said that quashing of a case under Section read with Sections 3 and Section based on compromise entered between the accused and the victim, is not legally permissible. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application.
The accused submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the accused and victim have settled their dispute amicably. The accused and the victim have married and are living happily together as husband and wife. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned criminal proceeding pending against the accused.
The State submitted that the victim was a child on the date of occurrence. Therefore, no compromise between such victim and the accused is permissible in law.
The Court said that it is no doubt true that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases. It was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.
The Court took note of Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., , wherein it was held that “the ground that ‘no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case’ cannot be a good ground or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings, when a clear case was made out for the offence alleged” and of Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., , wherein it was held that “in exercise of power under Section of the ., the Court should not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint/FIR. except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Entertaining a petition under Section at an interlocutory stage itself might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice.”
Further, the Court took note of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, , wherein it was held that the matter under Section 376 I.P.C. is also such an offence, which, though committed in respect of a particular victim, cannot be termed to be a private dispute between the parties. It has serious adverse societal effects. Therefore, any proceeding on the basis of alleged compromise of the accused vis-a-vis the victim cannot be quashed.
Placing reliance on Om Prakash v. State of U.P., , wherein it was held that the criminal proceedings under Section and cannot be quashed based on a compromise entered between the accused and the victim.
Thus, having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, the Court said that quashing of a case under Section read with Sections 3 and Section based on compromise entered between the accused and the victim, is not legally permissible. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application.
[Pravin Kumar Singh v State of U.P., Application under Section 482 No. 2941 of 2023, decided on 29-03-2023]
Also Read:
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate Ashish Kumar Gupta;
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate.
The post appeared first on .