Harishankar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9620 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29062 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Harishankar And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Govind
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Govind, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.0025 of 2002, under Sections 387, 323 IPC, Police Station- Rampura, District Jalaun pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd/Special Judge Special (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier this Court vide order dated 11th May 2022 directed the court below to verify the compromise deed between the parties and send the report. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the compromise verification report has been sent by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai vide covering letter dated 03.08.2022

From perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that along with the covering letter, the compromise deed as well as verification order have been appended. Vide the aforesaid compromise deed, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and no further dispute remains to be adjudicated.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also supports the stand of the applicants and submits that parties have entered into compromise which has been verified before the court below in the presence of all the parties.

On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection with the submission aforesaid.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from the report dated 03.08.2022 that the parties have entered into compromise and the same has been verified by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai. Further the counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also no objection to the compromise deed. Apart from above submission of learned counsel for the applicants, 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]

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 propounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others Vs. State of Gujarat And Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 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 a conviction 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."

Considering the fact that the compromise between the parties has been entered into which is on record and counsel for both the parties are also present. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 who is present, has no objection to this compromise deed. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.

Accordingly, entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.0025 of 2002, under Sections 387, 323 IPC, Police Station- Rampura, District Jalaun pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd/Special Judge Special (D.A.A.) Jalaun at Orai is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 8.8.2022

A.Kr.