Gulab And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3630 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2558 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Gulab And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bansh Gopal Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Bansh Gopal Mishra, learned counsel representing informant/opposite party no.2.

2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet No. 52 of 2014 dated31.12.2004 submitted in case Crime No. 149 of 2004 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Chowk, District- Maharajganj, Cognizance taking order dated 18.01.2005 as well as entire proceeding of consequential Sessions Trial No. 198 of 2008 (State Vs. Gulab and others) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (1) Maharajganj.

3. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.12.2004, a delayed F.I.R. dated 24.12.2004 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.2, Jangli, which was registered as Case Crime No. 149 of 2004 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Chowk, District- Maharajganj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Gulab, Muneeb and Umendra i.e. applicants herein, have been nominated as named accused.

3. As a counter blast to above, another F.I.R. dated 25.12.2004 was lodged by applicant no.1 Gulab which was registered as Case Crime No. 149A of 2014 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Chauk, District Maharajganj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Sitamber @ Chhote, Jangli (opposite party-2 herein) and Samoojh were nominated as named accused. Investigating Officer upon completion of investigation of above mentioned Case Crime Number ultimately submitted a charge sheet. Consequently, S.T. No. 31 OF 2015 (State Vs. Sitambar @ Chhote and others) came to be registered.

4. After registration of F.I.R. giving rise to this application, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Upon completion of statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number, investigating Officer ultimately submitted a charge sheet dated 31.12.2004 whereby applicants, who are named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned Magistrate vide cognizance taking order dated 18.01.2005. As a result thereof, aforesaid Sessions Trial no.198 of2008 came to be registered. Same was connected with Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2015 (State Vs. Sitambar @ Chhote and others) and are now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (1) Maharajganj.

5. During pendency of above mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Accordingly, a joint compromise application dated 08.04.2019 was filed before court below. Certified copy of the same is on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. Aforesaid compromise was taken on record by court concerned but ultimately rejected the same vide order dated 22.01.2020. Feeling aggrieved applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court challenging order dated 22.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case on the ground that a compromise has been entered into between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court by way of compromise. Consequently, a joint compromise application dated 08.04.2019 has been filed before court below, seeking adjudication of above mentioned criminal case on the basis of compromise.

7. It is thus urged that in view of above, court below erred in law in rejecting the joint compromise application vide impugned order dated 22.01.2020. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case in view of the compromise so entered between the parties. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned case 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.

8. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 further contends that once opposite party no.2 has himself compromised with applicants and in pursuance thereof, he submitted a joint compromise application, before court concerned, praying therein that case be decided on the basis of compromise, he now cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise. It is further contended that criminal proceeding against opposite party no.2 by way of S.T. No. 31 of 2015 ( State Vs. Sitambar @ Chhote and others) have already been quashed by this Court on the basis of compromise vide order dated 01.02.2021. Same has been brought on record as Annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by applicants.

9. 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]

10. 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."

11. I have examined the injury report of injured Sitambar, which is on record. Perusal of the same goes to show that the injured Sitamber has sustained only one incised would which is not on a vital part whereas injury no. 2 and 3 are simple in nature. Injuries so sustained are neither grievous nor fatal.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, submissions made by the counsel for the parties, coupled with the fact that criminal proceedings pending against opposite party no.2 and other by way of connected Sessions Trial the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

13. Accordingly, entire proceedings of proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 198 of2008 (State Vs. Gulab and others) arising out of case Crime No. 149 of 2004 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Chowk, District- Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (1) Maharajganj , are hereby quashed.

14. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 16.3.2021

YK