Arvind 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6539 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8836 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Arvind 8 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and perused the record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Room No. 6 (Rape and POCSO Act), Kasganj in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2014 (State Vs. Arvind and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 153 of 2013, Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 308 I.P.C., PS Patiyali, District Kasganj, in terms of compromise dated 04.01.2022 entered into between the parties, with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a compromise has taken place between the parties which was filed before the Court below as Annexure No.3. The Court below passed the order on 04.01.2022 stating the fact that the same sections are not compoundable, and therefore, the compromise was not verified. It is further submitted that in the cross case the same order was passed i.e. on 04.01.2022 by the Court below because the case was not compoundable. However, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed order on 26.04.2022 in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9173 of 2022 and the said entire case has been quashed. Counsel for applicant further submitted that since in the cross case the charge sheet has been quashed, therefore, the same benefit will also be granted to the applicant.

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]

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.

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."

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove as also the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.

Accordingly, the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2014 (State Vs. Arvind and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 153 of 2013, Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 325, 308 I.P.C., PS Patiyali, District Kasganj, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 6 (Rape and POCSO Act), Kasganj, are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 12.7.2022

AKT