Shambhu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4537 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 623 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Shambhu And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. Nil of 2018, (State Vs. Shambhu & another), arising out of Case Crime NO. 0156 of 2018, under section 354/504/506 IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 25.04.2018 and its Cognizance Order dated 24.11.2018 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

As per F.I.R version first informant/opposite party no. 2 was molested by the present applicants.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that both the applicants have filed cross case against each other. It appears that due to intervention of elders of family and society both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably out side the court. To ventilate their grievances, the present applicants/accuseds have moved the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings and moved the compromise applications dated 21.07.2018 Annexure No. 6. Vide order dated 08.01.2019 passed by this Court both, the parties were directed to appear before the Court concerned on 21.01.2019 for verification of the compromise dated 21.07.2018 as mentioned above and, simultaneously, learned court below was directed to submit the verification report in the matter. In compliance of aforesaid order dated 08.01.2019, learned court below has submitted the report dated 21.01.2019 along with the order dated 21.01.2019 passed on compromise application. It is observed by learned court below that both the parties have appeared before the court and were identified by their learned Advocates respectively and in their presence compromise application dated 21.07.2018 is verified by the court. Learned counsel for the applicants has also filed certified copy of verification order dated 21.01.2019 and the compromise application along with the supplementary affidavit dated 22.02.2019.

Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no. 2 has nodded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants with respect to the compromise which took place between the parties. He has stated that both the parties have buried to hatchet and at present they have no grudges against each other and they are living peacefully. It is further submitted that with respect to the incident in question cross case were filed and in both the cases parties who are neighbours have entered into compromise and decided to live with peace and harmony.

On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants prays for quashing of the aforesaid case. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the following cases :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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;

(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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) 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;

(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."

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper and to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties and its verification done by the court below ascertaining the willingness of the parties to settle their dispute amicably, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. Nil of 2018, (State Vs. Shambhu & another), arising out of Case Crime NO. 0156 of 2018, under section 354/504/506 IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 25.04.2018 and its Cognizance Order dated 24.11.2018 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, is hereby quashed.

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 24.3.2021

Vikram