# of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-17
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32637 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/of-court-apex-court-in-dhanlakshmi-v-r-prasana-kumar-44858
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
452, 504 and Cr.P.C., 1973- Section 482 -
Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of
Compromise - both sides have entered into
compromise and complainant does not want
to proceed with her complaint - Case within
the purview of law laid down by Apex Court
in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another
2012 LawSuit (SC) 623. (Para 5 and 6)

The summoning order is for offences punishable
under Section 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C.,
wherein both side have entered in compromise
and complainant does not want to proceed with
her complaint, hence, this case is within the
purview of law laid down by Apex Court.
Accordingly, for the end of justice, application is
allowed and proceedings of Complaint Case
pending in the court below are dismissed.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

2 All. Akhtar Ali & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
617
would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question
is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable apprehension of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge/Court". In
another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid,
(2008) 1 SCC 474, hon'ble Apex Court
propounded that "Ends of justice would
be better served if valuable time of the
Court is spent in hearing those appeals
rather than entertaining petitions under
Section 482 at an interlocutory stage
which after filed with some oblique motive
in order to circumvent the prescribed
procedure, or to delay the trial which
enable to win over the witness or may
disinterested
in
giving
evidence,
ultimately resulting in miscarriage of
Justice". In again another subsequent
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has
propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section
itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction
of High Court Apex Court in Popular
Muthiah
v.
State,
Represented
by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296
has propounded "High Court can exercise
jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of
justice. It can do so while exercising other
jurisdictions
such
as
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction.
No
formal
application
for
invoking
inherent
jurisdiction
is
necessary.
Inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of
substantive as well as procedural matters.
It can as well be exercised in respect of
incidental
or
supplemental
power
irrespective of nature of proceedings".

Regarding prevention of abuse of
process
of
Court,
Apex
Court
in
Dhanlakshmi
v.
R.Prasana
Kumar,
(1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC
494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of
the process of the Court, High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers under
section 482 could quash the proceedings
but there would be justification for
interference only when the complaint did
not disclose any offence or was frivolous
vexatious or oppressive" as well as in
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989)
Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court
propounded "In exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 High Court would not
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to
be established by evidence or not".

8. Hence, this Court is not to analyze
the factual evidence in exercise of inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence,
this proceeding merits its dismissal.

9. The present application stands
dismissed, accordingly.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 617

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32637 of 2019

Akhtar Ali & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Pavan Kishore, Sri Mahendra Kumar
Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323,
452, 504 and Cr.P.C., 1973- Section 482 -
Quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of
Compromise - both sides have entered into
compromise and complainant does not want
to proceed with her complaint - Case within
the purview of law laid down by Apex Court
in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another
2012 LawSuit (SC) 623. (Para 5 and 6)

The summoning order is for offences punishable
under Section 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C.,
wherein both side have entered in compromise
and complainant does not want to proceed with
her complaint, hence, this case is within the
purview of law laid down by Apex Court.
Accordingly, for the end of justice, application is
allowed and proceedings of Complaint Case
pending in the court below are dismissed.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. 2012 Law
Suit (SC) 623
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the summoning
order dated 25.1.2012 as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3785 of
2015, (Usha Devi Vs. Akhtar Ali and
others), under Sections- 323, 452, 504 and
506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mehndawal,
District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the
Court
of
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)/A.C.J.M., Sant Kabir Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that it was a dispute between both
side which led filing of complaint against
accused Akhtar Ali, Sukurunnisha alias
Sakurunnisha, Rizwana Khatoon, Sabana
Khatoon, Gulsana Khatoon, Parma Devi
and Nirja Devi wherein complainant Smt.
Usha Devi was examined under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. and her witnesses were
examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, a summoning order dated
15.1.2012, for offence punishable under
Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
against Akhtar Ali, Sukurunnisha alias
Sakurunnisha, Rizwana Khatoon, Sabana
Khatoon, Gulsana Khatoon, Parma Devi
was
passed,
which
is
pending
as
Complaint Case No. 345 of 2011 (Usha
Devi Vs. Akhtar Ali and others) of P.S.
Mehndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Parties have entered in compromise,
which is at Page No. 24 wherein both
sides
has
mentioned
about
their
compromise. Thereafter, an application
dated
22.9.2012
was
moved
by
complainant Usha Devi before Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir
Nagar, for ending proceeding of criminal
complaint case but the same is still
pending and no order over it has been
passed. Hence, in view of law laid down
by Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab & another 2012 LawSuit
(SC) 623, the proceeding be ended.

4. Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav,
learned counsel for the opposite party No.
2 as well as learned AGA for the State is
having no objection over it.

5. Paragraph No. 57 of the order
passed in Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & another (supra) is quoted as
below:-

"57. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised
2 All. Akhtar Ali & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
619
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. 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 predominatingly civil flavour 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"

6. This summoning order is for
offences punishable under Section 323,
452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., wherein both
side have entered in compromise and
complainant does not want to proceed
with her complaint, hence, this case is
within the purview of above law of Apex
Court.

7. Accordingly, for the end of
justice, this application is being allowed
and proceeding of Complaint Case No.
3785 of 2015, (Usha Devi Vs. Akhtar Ali
and others), under Sections- 323, 452, 504
and
506
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-
Mehndawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar,
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division)/A.C.J.M., Sant Kabir
Nagar, is being dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 620

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 28614 of 2019

Hasan Akhtar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Cr.P.C.,
1973 - Section 482 - Non-Bailable
warrants - Complaint challenged after
eight years - On basis of allegations,
prima facie case made out against the
applicant - Questions of fact cannot be
examined by this Court in proceedings
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
The
jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or
a charge-sheet should be exercised
sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
 (Para 5,6,7 & 8)

The impugned complaint was filed against the
applicant and co-accused in the year 2011 and
after summoning order, the applicant has
appeared before the trial court. There are
allegations against the applicant in the
impugned complaint that opposite party no.2
was abused and given beatings by the
applicant and co-accused persons over the
issue of property and that his wrist watch and
cash of Rs. 1200/- was snatched from him. It
was also alleged that the applicant and coaccused
has
threatened
to
kill
the
complainant.
It
is
apparent
from
the
allegations that prima facie case is made out
against the applicant.

It is apparent from the complaint and material
on record that a prima facie case is made out
against the applicant. The case of the
applicant does not fall in any of the category
enumerated by the Apex Court through various
judicial pronouncements for quashing of
proceedings. It is well settled that at this
stage, this Court has to eschew itself from
embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last
details of the case. It is also not advisable to
adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end
in submission of charge sheet and then
eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima
facie satisfaction of the court about the
existence of sufficient ingredients constituting
the offence is required in order to see whether
the proceedings deserves quashing.

 On merits of the matter, no case for quashing
of the impugned proceedings is made out. The
legal position on the issue of quashing of
criminal proceedings is well-settled that the
jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a
charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly
and only in exceptional cases.

 Questions of fact cannot be examined by this
Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Applicant was continuously absconding and
was not appearing before the trial court and
that non-bailable warrants were being issued
against him continuously since last several
years. No illegality or perversity or any other
error could be pointed out in the impugned
order. Application accordingly dismissed.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Judgements relied upon/discussed: -

1. AIR 1992 SC 605 St. of Har. & ors. Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal
2. R. Kalyani Vs Janak C. Mehta & ors. 2009
(1) SCC 516
3. Kamlesh Kumari & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2015
AIR
SCW
3700