Mohd. Yaseen And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7729 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6162 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Yaseen And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Sri Mohd. Nooruddin Khan, Advocate submits that although he has already filed his power on behalf of opposite party no.2 but today his name is not printed in the cause list.

Heard Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohd. Nooruddin, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State, and perused the record of the case.

The instant application has been filed on behalf of applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 460 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.236 fo 2018, under Sections 420 and 468 IPC, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Chandpur, District Bijnor as well as charge sheet dated 20.6.2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.3.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the FIR of the present case was lodged by opposite party no.2 against applicants on 25.3.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against applicants and the court below took the cognizance and issued summons against them but after that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and in this regard a compromise has been executed between the parties which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the present application. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 29.4.2022 directed the court below to verify the compromise dated 23.3.2022. He next submitted that pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by this Court, both the parties appeared before the court concerned and the compromise dated 23.3.2022 was duly verified by the court below and, therefore, at present no dispute is left between the parties and the proceeding pending against applicants is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also conceded the fact that opposite party no.2 has entered into a compromise on 23.2.2022 with the applicants and the compromise filed by the parties has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this court and even opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed the matter further and he is having no objection if proceeding pending against applicants is quashed on the basis of compromise.

Learned AGA also submitted that as both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the compromise executed between them has been duly verified by the court concerned, therefore, he is having no objection if the proceeding pending against applicants is quashed on the basis of compromise.

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

Record of the case suggests that initially FIR of the present case was lodged against applicants by opposite party no.2 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against them under Sections 420 and 468 IPC and after submission of charge sheet on 23.2.2022 both the parties amicably settled their dispute and in this regard a compromise was also executed which is on record as

annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the present application and pursuant to the order passed by this Court compromise dated 23.2.2022 was duly verified by the court concerned.

The office report dated 8.7.2022 also shows that pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by this court, the court below after verification of the compromise submitted its report to this Court which is on record as "Flag-A".

From the perusal of the report of Magistrate dated 19.5.2022 (Flag-A) shows that both the parties pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2022 passed by this Court appeared before the court below and the compromise executed between them was duly verified by the court concerned. Therefore, compromise dated 23.2.2022 executed between the parties is now duly verified.

Applicants have been charge sheeted under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. Offence under Section 468 IPC is non compoundable but as the dispute between the parties is private in nature and does not affect the society at large and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, therefore, even in non-compoundable offence proceedings can be quashed by this Court.

A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of 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. Paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, 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, Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after discussing its entire earlier judgements 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 extraordinary 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."

Therefore, from the judgement of the Apex Court, law is fairly settled now that even in cases which relates to non-compoundable offences this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings in terms of compromise executed between both the parties.

Therefore, the law is well settled that if the dispute is private in nature and does not affect the public at large then even criminal proceeding for non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise can be quashed by this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

As in the present case, dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and both the parties amicably settled their dispute and the compromise executed between them has already been duly verified by this Court and there is no dispute left between the parties, therefore, in view there of the impugned proceedings pending against applicants are hereby quashed.

The present application stands allowed.

Order Date :- 22.7.2022

SKM