Babu Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6326 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10979 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Babu Ali
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Siraj Ahmad Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikrant Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Mohd. Aslam, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Siraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

By way of the present application the applicant made a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2016 of 2020, State Vs. Babu Ali including charge-sheet dated 22.6.2020 (arising out of Case Crime No. 985 of 2019), under sections 448, 452, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District Rampur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Rampur on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2022 entered between the applicant and opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 12.12.2019 under sections 448, 386, 452, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. against the applicant and one another and on 22.6.2020, the charge-sheet was filed only against the applicant under sections 448, 452, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and on 7.8. 2020 the applicant was summoned by the trial court and trial of the case was pending but in the meantime on 26.2.2021 the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into compromise, which is annexed as Annexure No. -3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. He further submitted that vide order dated 17.2.2022 this court directed the court below to verify the compromise dated 26.2.2021 and in pursuance of the order dated 17.2.2022, court below after verification has already submitted its report and as per the report, the compromise dated 26.2.2021 was duly verified. He further submitted as the opposite party no. 2, the informant of the case herself does not want to proceed further on merit and she is having no objection if the proceeding pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise. Therefore, on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2021, the impugned proceeding pending against the applicant should be quashed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also considered the fact that compromise between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 has been executed on 26.2.2021 and opposite party no. 2 herself do not want to proceed further on merit and she herself wants to decide the present dispute on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2021 and she is having no objection if proceeding pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Learned A.G.A. although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that on 26.2.2021, the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise and compromise dated 26.2.2021 has been duly verified by the court below also and perusal of the compromise dated 26.2.2021 clearly suggests that opposite party no. 2, the informant of the case herself do not want to proceed further on merit and having been no objection if proceeding pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2021.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

Record of the case suggests that on 12.12.2019 an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and one other co-accused namely, Asif (not charge-sheeted), under sections 448, 386, 452, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. F.I.R. of the present matter shows that opposite party no. 2 is the landlord of the applicant and there was some tenancy dispute is going on between both the parties. Although, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant on 22.6.2020 and cognizance was also taken and summons were issued on 7.8.2020 but in the meantime on 26.2.2021 both the parties have entered into compromise and compromise dated 26.2.2021 is on record annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. Compromise dated 26.2.2021 has now been duly verified. Perusal of the compromise dated 26.2.2021 clearly shows that opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the case pending against the applicant be decided on the basis of compromise dated 26.2.2021.

The Apex Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:-

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

(ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

(iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

(iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated herein-above;

(v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

Again, recently the Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgments observed in para-19 as follows:-

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

Thus, from the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is apparent that on the basis of compromise proceedings can be quashed by this Court while exercising its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. even the non-compoundable offences.

As opposite party no. 2 and applicant has already compromised the matter and compromise dated 26.2.2021 is duly verified by the court concerned and present dispute is private one and does not affect the society, therefore, the proceedings of case no. 2016 of 2020, charge-sheet dated 22.6.2020 as well as impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 7.8.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 985 of 2019, under Sections 448, 452, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Civil lines, District Rampur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

Order Date :- 8.7.2022/Vibha Singh