Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath Chauhan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1286 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Nath Chauhan And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhrigu Jee Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhrigu Jee Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh learned counsel representing opposite party no.2.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2019 (State Vs. Virendra Chauhan and others) under Sections 363, 366, 368 , 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sahatwar, District-Ballia arising out of Case Crime No. 0164 of 2018 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia.
3. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 03.08.2008, a delayed F.I.R. dated 14.10.2018 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.2, Shivnath Yadav, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0164 of 2018 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C, P.S. Sahatwar, District-Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Umesh Chauhan, Virendra Chauhan, Jawahar Chauhan and Bheem Chauhan have been nominated as named accused.
4. After registration of the aforesaid F.I.R., Police proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. After completion of statutory investigation, Investigating Officer opined that a chart sheet should be submitted against two of the named accused. Accordingly, a charge sheet dated 24.02.2019 was submitted against the two of the named accused namely Ramnath Chauhan and Virendra Chauhan i.e. applicants herein . Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 26.02.2019 As a result of aforesaid, above mentioned sessions trial came to be registered against applicant, wherein applicants have been summoned.
5. During pendency of above noted trial, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has married prosecutrix who is daughter of opposite party no.2 and now both are residing together. It is also contended that for the wedlock of applicant and prosecutrix. a male chill has also been born. He further submits that prosecutrix has sworn the affidavit in support of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged by learned counsel for applicant that since dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute. The applicant and prosecutrix have amicably settled their dispute as they have married and are now living a happy married life. As a result, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned Sessions Trial are quashed by this court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to court below.
7. Learned A.G.A. as well as Mr. Santosh Kumar Sing, learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 could not oppose the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 further contends that since an affidavit has been sworn by opposite party no.2 and he himself has comprised with applicant out side the court, now opposite party no.2 cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise.He has further invited the attention of Court o the short counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 where the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present application have been admitted.
8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]
9. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
9. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;
16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. 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.
16.3. 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;
16.4. 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;
16.5. 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;
16.6. 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;
16.7. 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;
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.
11. Accordingly, proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Virendra Chauhan and others) under Sections 363, 366, 368 , 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sahatwar, District-Ballia arising out of Case Crime No. 0164 of 2018 under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia, are hereby quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
YK
