Rajpal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3650 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1836 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rajpal And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and ,Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing informant/opposite party no.2.

2. Instant application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 30.05.2020 submitted in case Crime No. 160 of 2020 under Sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Police Station-Bahjoi, District- Sambhal as well as entire proceeding of consequential Case No.379 of 2020 (State Vs. Rajpal and others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal.

3. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 20.04.2020, a delayed F.I.R. dated 29.02.2020 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.2, Nathhu Singh, which was registered as case Crime No. 160 of 2020 under Sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Police Station-Bahjoi, District- Sambhal. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Rajpal, Tejpal and Rajnesh i.e. applicants herein, have been nominated as named accused.

4. Police upon registration of F.I.R. 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 30.05.2020 whereby applicants, who are named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, court concerned took cognizance as well as summoned accused applicants by a common order dated 06.062020. As a result thereof, aforesaid criminal case came to be registered which is now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal.

5. During pendency of above mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Accordingly, a compromise deed was drawn. Certified copy of the same is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. Aforesaid compromise deed was taken on record by court concerned vide order dated 07.10.2020. As no consequential order has been passed on the compromise application referred to above, applicants who are accused have now approached this Court seeking quashing of entire proceeding of above mentioned criminal case on the ground that 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 deed. Consequently, a compromise deed 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, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. 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 oppose 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, a joint compromise deed was filed before court concerned praying therein that case be decided on the basis of compromise, he cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise.

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. 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. 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.

12. Since the case in hand is under Section 308 I.P.C., I have examined the injury report of injured Natthu Singh and Ramkumar. None of the injuries sustained by injured are either grievous of fatal.

13. On perusal of injury report of Natthu Singh, goes to show that doctor has opined that the injury sustained by Natthu Singh is simple in nature. As such it is a case of no injury.

14. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.379 of 2020 (State Vs. Rajpal and others) arising out of case Crime No. 160 of 2020 under Sections 323, 308 I.P.C. Police Station-Bahjoi, District- Sambhal pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal, are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 16.3.2021

YK