Rahul Yadav & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10714 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2297 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rahul Yadav & Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 as well as perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 jointly submit that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 5.8.2021, the matter was sent before the Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise deed. The compromise has been verified by the Senior Registrar and the contents of compromise deed have been read over and explained to both the parties to the compromise deed. Therefore, they pray that in view of Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, viz., Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, where it has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice, the proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 1740 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0898 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 352, 452, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow be quashed.

It is evident from the record/order-sheet that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the Senior Registrar vide his report dated 12.8.2021. The original compromise deed is appended as Annexure 7 to the petition, which shows that respondents do not want to prosecute the petitioners.

Learned A.G.A for the State has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai karmur and others vs. Stateof Gujarat and another', decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii.The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are truly speaking not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

Keeping in view the nature and gravity and also the severity of the offence and also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it will be proper to meet to the ends of justice that the proceeding of the case (supra) be quashed.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition is allowed. Charge sheet dated 8.2.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1740 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0898 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 352, 452, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 24.8.2021

Madhu