# Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1031 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-07-08 - **Case number:** BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN Application U/S 482 No. 11813 of 2020 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kashi-nath-pandey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45910 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section 320- Non-Compoundable offences -Civil dispute - The offences imputed under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not compoundable-It is well settled that even the offences which are not compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power High Court has to consider whether offences are arising out of family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, if it is so, then High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, on account 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. It is settled law that in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the event of the parties arriving at a compromise even in non-compoundable offences, provided the offences are not heinous or grave and are either matrimonial or civil disputes in nature and the possibility of the court securing the conviction of the accused as a result of compromise is remote or impossible. Since, the instant case has arisen out of family dispute and parties have arrived at a compromise, the wrong is of private and personal nature, have not impact on the society. In such circumstance, to let the proceeding continuing before the trial court will be nothing but a futile exercise. Criminal Application allowed. (Para 11, 12) (E-3) Case law relied upon/ Discussed: - ## Text 9 All. Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1031 25. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 26. Registry is directed to inform the trial court for compliance of order. ---------- (2020)09ILR A1031 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN Application U/S 482 No. 11813 of 2020 Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants Sri Anjani Kumar Rai, Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, Sri Mangala Prasad Rai. Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A.,Sri Dhiraj Singh. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section 320- Non-Compoundable offences -Civil dispute - The offences imputed under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not compoundable-It is well settled that even the offences which are not compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power High Court has to consider whether offences are arising out of family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, if it is so, then High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, on account 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. It is settled law that in the exercise of its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.Pc, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings in the event of the parties arriving at a compromise even in non-compoundable offences, provided the offences are not heinous or grave and are either matrimonial or civil disputes in nature and the possibility of the court securing the conviction of the accused as a result of compromise is remote or impossible. Since, the instant case has arisen out of family dispute and parties have arrived at a compromise, the wrong is of private and personal nature, have not impact on the society. In such circumstance, to let the proceeding continuing before the trial court will be nothing but a futile exercise. Criminal Application allowed. (Para 11, 12) (E-3) Case law relied upon/ Discussed: - 1. B.S. Joshi & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors., (2003) 4 SCC 675 2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. ( 2012) 10 SCC 303 3. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jhar. & ors. (2014) 9 SCC 653 4. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J.) 1. Sri Dhiraj Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as 1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. and perused the record. 3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1883 of 2019 (State vs. Kashi Nath Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.393 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that late Mahadev had three sons namely Hari Prasad Pandey, Kamla Prasad Pandey and Vishnu Prasad Pandey. Vishnu Prasad Pandey had no issue and was living with Hari Prasad Pandey, who had executed a Will deed in favour of applicant no.1 Kashi Nath Pandey son of Hari Prasad Pandey. Being aggrieved with the Will, opposite party no.2 Rama Shankar Pandey lodged an F.I.R. against applicants under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. alleging that a fake Will deed has been prepared on 27.01.2018 while Vishnu Prasad Pandey (executant of the Will) died on 06.07.2016. During investigation a compromise entered into between the parties but Investigating Officer did not include the compromise as part of case diary and submitted charge sheet, thereafter, informant moved an application before the S.S.P., Varanasi but of no avail, thereafter, in the court also a compromise deed was filed on 07.01.2020 but court has not accepted the compromise and kept on record. He further submits that since F.I.R. was lodged by family members of the applicants and they have arrived to a settlement, therefore, there would be only a futile exercise of the trial, no fruitful purpose would be served. Hence, he prays that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that a compromise has been arrived between the parties and compromise has been filed by the parties on 07.01.2020. Therefore, they do not want to prosecute the case. 6. The offences imputed under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. are not compoundable. Therefore, it has to be considered by the Court whether by exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the criminal case pending against the applicants can be quashed and to resolve the issue, it will be apt to refer the following cases. 7. In B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 8. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another ( 2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R, if it is satisfied that on 9 All. Kashi Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1033 the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. 9. In Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (2014) 9 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 10. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantingly 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. 11. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, it is well settled that even the offences which are not compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power High Court has to consider whether offences are arising out of family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, if it is so, then High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, on account 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. 12. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the F.I.R. was lodged by a member of the family of the applicants and they have entered into a compromise. The compromise has been filed before the court concerned and which is also annexed-10 to the affidavit filed in support of application and order sheet annexed-11 to the affidavit filed in support of application, order sheet dated 07.01.2020, discloses the compromise filed has been kept on record. The F.I.R. was lodged alleging that a forged Will deed has been prepared by applicant no.1 but now as per para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application informant has no objection with regard to the Will. 1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Since, the instant case has arisen out of family dispute and parties have arrived at a compromise, the wrong is of private and personal nature, have not impact on the society. In such circumstance, to let the proceeding continuing before the trial court will be nothing but a futile exercise, waste of time and energy only, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings of aforementioned case. 13. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1883 of 2019 (State vs. Kashi Nath Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.393 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby quashed. 14. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 15. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned trial court. ---------- (2020)09ILR A1034 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 11903 of 2020 Ajay Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, Sri Abhay Krishn Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A., Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise - Indian Penal Code- Section 320- Non-Compoundable offences - Section 363 and 366 - Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of process of any court. Even the offences which are not compoundable can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising such power High Court has to consider whether offences are arising out of family dispute where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, if it is so, then High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, on account 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. While exercising such power 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 quashed even though victim or victim's family and offender have settled the dispute as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Offences under special statutes like prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while acting in that capacity also cannot be quashed. The offences which have been levelled against the applicants are of private in nature and have not serious impact on the society. Opposite party No. 2 has also filed a short counter affidavit stating therein that now he has accepted