Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh "Dhakray" applicant no.6 in person, Sri Kamlendra Singh "Jaduan", learned counsel for applicant nos. 1 to 19 except applicant no. 6 and the learned A.G.A. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C,? applicants have sought for quashing of the following three set of proceedings, i.e. F.I.R. / cross F.I.R.'s on the basis of recorded compromise between the parties and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303and Narendra Singh and others Vs.State of Punjab, 2014 6 SCC 466: "(i) F.I.R. No. 524 of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 142, 504, 506, 436, 336, 307, 427 I.P.C. (State Vs. Ajit Singh and others) in Case No.513/2008, P.S. Loha Mandi, Agra along with F.I.R. No. 524 of 1993 (State Vs. Binod Bansal) in Case No. 543 of 2006, both pending before the Court of A.D.J.-II, Agra. (ii) F.I.R. No. 524-A of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 427, 436 I.P.C. & Section 27/2 Arms Act, P.S. Loha Mandi, Agra (State Vs. B.P. Singh Dhakray) Case No. 446 of 2010, pending before the Court of A.D.J.-II, Agra. (iii) F.I.R. No. 524-B of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 149 307, 504, 336, 427, 436 I.P.C., P.S. Loha Mandi, Agra (State Vs. B.P. Singh Dhakray) Case No. 446 of 2010? pending before the Court of A.D.J.-II, Agra."
(2.) It is submitted by Sri Dhakray / applicant no.6 and Sri Jadaun, learned counsel for the respective applicants that way back in 1999 in District Agra, an unruly incident took place in the court campus, involving the lawyers and the clerks of the Sales Tax Department in which F.I.R and cross F.I.R.'s came to be filed from either side against each other, but no injuries were alleged. It is further submitted that applicant no.2 is the informant in Case Crime No.524/1993; applicant no.8 is the informant in Case Crime No.524-A/193 and applicant no.10 is the informant in Case Crime No.524-B/1993. It is thus submitted that on account of good senses having been prevailed upon, the matter stood amicably settled and the applicants had initially approached this Court by way of an application under Section 482 No.19818/2015 for the quashment of the aforesaid three-set of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, which came to be disposed of on 30.7.2015 directing the court concerned to verify the said compromise, giving liberty to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing the proceedings on the ground of recorded settlement / compromise. Pursuant thereto, the applicants, i.e., the informants in all the three cases along with the respective accused persons appeared before the court concerned on 4.9.2015 and signed and verified the compromise dated 5.7.2015. A report dated 4.9.2015 was also submitted before this Court regarding the factum of the execution / verification of the compromise.
(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that; "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 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 pre-dominatingly civil favour 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.";