Allahabad High Court
Rohit Soni And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17871 of 2017
Applicant :- Rohit Soni And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhriguram Ji
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to set aside the charge sheet dated 21.11.2016, in Case Crime No. 424 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (1) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, and a further prayer to stay the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
A compromise deed was entered into between the parties on 17.05.2022, but the same has not been filed before the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case are quashed.
The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 05.08.2022 along with compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order.
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 thethe charge sheet dated 15.01.2012, Cognizance order dated 21.05.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2012 (State vs. Deep Narayan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2011, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Mehewaghat, District Kaushambi, pendithe charge sheet dated 21.11.2016, in Case Crime No. 424 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (1) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansing in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi 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;
the charge sheet dated 15.01.2012, Cognizance order dated 21.05.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2012 (State vs. Deep Narayan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2011, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Mehewaghat, District Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi16.8. 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 both the parties are also present here. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 who is present, has no objection to this compromise. 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, the proceedings of the charge sheet dated 21.11.2016, in Case Crime No. 424 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (1) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
v.k.updh.
