Sompal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3529 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4432 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Sompal Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Kori
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard, Shri Virendra Kumar Kori, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Shri Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/petitioner for quashing of the entire proceedings of the Criminal case No.6409 of 2015 (State Versus Sompal Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2013, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad, in terms of the compromise between the applicant and the opposite party no.2.

3. This court by means of order dated 12.04.2022 had directed the parties to appear before the trial court within two weeks and the trial court after proper identification will verify the compromise on the same day and will submit the report to this court. In pursuance thereof the verification report dated 06.05.2022 from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Moradabad through the District Judge, Moradabad dated 07.05.2022 has been received in which it is stated that the compromise has been verified on 04.05.2022.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2013 the opposite party no.2 lodged NCR No.13 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504 IPC at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Moradabad with the allegation that the applicant had beaten the opposite party no.2 and caused injuries. The NCR was converted into the First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.74 of 2013, under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC, Police Station-Kotali Nagar, District-Moradabad. As per the medical examination report and the supplementary medical examination report two injuries were found. After investigation the charge sheet dated 21.04.2013 was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 323, 325 and 504 IPC against the applicant. The cognizance was taken and the charges were framed on 12.09.2013. However, the parties have entered into compromise and resolved that now there is no dispute between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite party no.2 submitted the compromise has been verified and thea verification report has been received by this court and since the parties have entered into compromise there is no benefit in keeping the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.6409 of 2015; State Versus Sompal Yadav, arising out of case crime No.74 of 2013, under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC pending and the proceedings of the said case may be quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection as the parties have entered into compromise and the dispute is purely personal in nature.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the First Information Report was lodged under Section 323, 325 and 504 IPC against the applicant. The two injuries were found. The case is pending between the parties, however they have entered into compromise, whereby the complainant has stated that now there is no dispute between the parties and they will live together happily and friendly, so they do not want any further proceedings in the matter. The compromise has been verified and the verification report received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad is on record. The dispute is purely personal in nature and is not affecting the public at large or the society.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or First Information Report or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In which case the power to quash the criminal proceedings or a complaint or the First Information Report, the power may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute what punishment and the fact and circumstances of the case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercising such power the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Versus State of Gujarat and another; (2017) 9 SCC 641, has held that Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the 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. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is not-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the broad principles in paragraph 16, which is extracted below:-

"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 ofSection 320of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash underSection 482is 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 underSection 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 underSection 482and 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 aconviction 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."

10. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others; (2019) 5 SCC 688, has held that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings of the 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 and conduct etc. of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down its observations in paragraph 15 after considering the law on the point and other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 15 is extracted below:-

"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:

15.1. That the power conferred underSection 482of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences underSection 320of 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;

15.2. 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;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes likePrevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants while working in thatcapacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4. Offences underSection 307IPC and theArms Actetc. 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 underSection 307IPC and/or theArms Actetc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers underSection 482of 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 ofSection 307IPC 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 ofSection 307IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge underSection 307IPC. 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 isfiled/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;

15.5. While exercising the power underSection 482of 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."

11. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the First Information Report was lodged in regard to purely a personal dispute which has no impact on society. The parties have entered into a compromise to live happily and friendly and not to prosecute any of them henceforth. The applicants have no criminal history. The compromise has been verified, therefore this court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending and it would be in the ends of justice to quash the proceedings of Criminal case No.6409 of 2015 (State Versus Sompal Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2013, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad, also to avoid any further harassment to the parties and to save the precious time of the court, which may be utilized in contested cases in place of futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak as the parties have entered into compromise.

12. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the proceedings of Criminal case No.6409 of 2015 (State Versus Sompal Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.74 of 2013, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad, are hereby quashed..

.

........................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 20.5.2022

Banswar