- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for private respondent and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THE present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1988 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad for dismissing the criminal appeal no. 20 of 1987 which was filed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.1987 of 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad wherein the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years of R.I. under section 307 IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, six months further R.I.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therein a compromise deed dated 6.10.2012 as annexure SA1, wherein it has been mentioned that both the parties have amicably settled their disputes and both the parties are living together peacefully and thus the present revision may be disposed of in terms of the said compromise. He further submits that the incident had taken place on 17.11.1982 and a period of almost 32 years have already expired and in this view of the matter it would be in the interest of justice that the present revision may be disposed off. He confined his argument only to the effect that the revision may be disposed of finally in terms of the compromise and with this contention he heavily relied upon a judgment of Hon. Apex Court rendered in the case of Narendra Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another,2014 AIR(SCW) 2065. In this matter the Hon'ble Apex Court after going through the various judgments and also keeping in view of the fact that the offence under section 307 IPC is not compoundable had summed up the legal position in the following words: "Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the offense 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 a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the FIR regarding the incident was lodged by Shree Ram PW2 on 17.11.1982, has already expired in the year 1982 and the deponent of the affidavit, namely, Ravi Prakash who was the sole injured in the said occurrence is at present aged about 75 years. It has been further contended that the injured Ravi Prakash and the accused are the residents of same village and are close neighbour and the dispute is purely personal in nature and not against general public or society at large and moreover looking to the age factor and also the time gap the revision may be disposed of strictly in accordance with the compromise.;