Suresh Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5391 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9591 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Suresh Yadav And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shakti Shanker Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Shakti Shanker Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No. 36872 of 2019 (State Vs. Suresh Yadav and others), under Sections 384, 232, 504 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Knapur Nagar.

3. Parties to the present application have approached earlier this Court by way of filing Application under Section 482 No. 7192 of 2021, which was disposed of by following order dated 06.12.2021:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire impugned proceeding of Case No.36872 of 2019 (State vs. Suresh Yadav and others), arising from charge sheet dated 10.07.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.0407 of 2019, under Sections 384, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise have been arrived between them dated 04.12.2020 (photocopy of the same is appended as annexure No.4 to the application).

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, before which, the case is pending. Therefore, the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court below itself.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of with direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notice to all its signatories requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants."

4. In pursuance of above order, parties have appeared before Trial Court and vide order dated 14.12.2021 the contents of compromise were verified. For reference the said order is mentioned hereinafter:

"आज मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 6.12.21 के अनुपालन में अभियुक्तगण सुरेश यादव, रोहित यादव, राहुल यादव, सत्य प्रकाश उर्फ वनईया व वादी बाबू जय प्रकाश न्यायालय उपस्थित आये। मा. उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में अभियुक्तगण व वादी मय अधिवक्ता उपस्थित है। वादी की शिनाख्त वादी के अधिवक्ता श्री अजय सिंह व अभियुक्तगण की शिनाख्त अभियुक्तगण के अधिवक्ता श्री अशोक कुमार गौतम द्वारा की गयी। समझौता पत्र दिनांकित 4.12.20 न्यायालय में पक्षकारों को पढ़कर सुनाकर तस्दीक किया गया पक्षकारों द्वारा समझौते हेतु सहमति व्यक्त की गई।"

5. In these circumstances, the applicants have filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in pursuance of said compromise.

6. This Court passed following order on 07.06.2022:

"The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 36872 of 2019 (State Vs. Suresh Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0407 of 2019, under Sections 384, 232, 504 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of the compromise.

It has been stated by the counsel for the applicants that the parties have settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise and the said compromise has also been verified by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 14.12.2021.

The A.G.A. shall obtain instructions in the matter by the next date fixed and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar shall also send a report regarding verification of compromise by the next date fixed in this case.

Put up again as fresh on 27th June, 2022.

Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 36872 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 0407 of 2019, under Sections 384, 232, 504 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar."

7. In pursuance of above order, report has been sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned verifying the above referred order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for parties submits that in view of above the criminal proceedings between parties be quashed considering the judgment passed by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466.

Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :-

9. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh (supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under Section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point, in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others : (2019)5 SCC 688, after considering earlier judgments Gian Singh (supra); State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (supra); State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J. Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh: (2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar (2019) 5 SCC 570, clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-

"15 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 hereinabove;

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 impart 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."

10. Considering the above submissions and the fact that Trial Court has verified the contents of compromise and also considering the above discussion on law, by which the facts of the present case are squarely covered, the proceedings between the parties are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, application is allowed. The impugned proceedings of Case No. 36872 of 2019 (State vs. Suresh Yadav and others), under Sections 384, 232, 504 IPC are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 27.06.2022

AK