Continuation of criminal proceeding would lead to oppression & prejudice to parties

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 6th January 2020

Smt. Gomti Devi And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another Application  U/S 482 No. – 27341 of 2012

Facts –

The applicant, purchased a land from Madhu Sharma, who is daughter-in-law of opposite party, entered into sale deed.

As per prosecution case, the opposite party lodged first information report through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and alleged that his daughter-in-law, Madhu Sharma wrongly and illegally executed a sale deed of plot situated at village Goardhanpur, Ghaziabad (now district Hapur),in favour of applicant after the death of his son.

The Investigation Officer had filed an impugned charge sheet under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said charge sheet has been challenged in this present application. 

During the pendency of the case, the parties had entered into a compromise outside the court, and thereafter a civil suit was filed by the grandson of opposite party for cancellation of the sale deed, decided in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties.

I was also submitted that as both the parties compromised, all the disputes between them comes to an end, hence, the criminal proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge sheet against the appellants would be pointless . Therefore the case should be quashed by the court.

Judgement –

Considering previous judgements, it has been noted that Apex court has approved the quashing of cases which involve non compoundable offences, inclusive that the nature of the offence should not have grievous social ramification and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties.

After compromise arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a wastage of precious time of the Court. The Allahabad High Court thus held that once the parties have already made a compromise as to their dispute, it would be prejudicial if criminal proceedings are continued regarding the same dispute. The Hon’ble Court, therefore, allowed the application filed by the appellants under section 482 of CrPC, 1973. The Court also said that it was not necessary to move ahead with punishment regarding every dispute especially when the parties have agreed and made a compromise outside the court.