Ramesh Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3683 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2675 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Maurya
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kanaujia
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

1. The case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri Tilak Raj Singh, Advocate are present in the Court.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant Ramesh Kumar Maurya against private opposite party no.2 namely Ratrani.

4. From the array of parties, it appears that the applicant and the complainant are residents of same village i.e. Village Jahsadh Sarswa, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

5. Earlier to this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant had filed another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Misc. Case No.5439 (U/s 482) of 2021 with averment as to the amicable settlement between rival parties to the Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge / F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri. That was disposed of with direction vide order dated 08.04.2022 by this Court to the learned trial court to verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties. The parties were given liberty to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification.

6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.04.2022, the compromise entered into between the rival parties of aforesaid criminal case was presented before the trial court where the Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri is pending.

7. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved by the applicant, Ramesh Kumar Maurya with a prayer that the Court, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge / F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri, summoning order dated 10.08.2020 as well as the impugned chargesheet no.71 of 2020 dated 11.02.2020 submitted against the applicant by the Investigating Officer in aforesaid case as the parties to the aforesaid criminal trial have amicably settled their dispute and the compromise agreement between them has been duly verified in accordance with law. It is alleged that the trial court has not quashed the proceeding on the basis of the said compromise by reason of some of the offences being non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

8. The said duly verified compromise by the trial court and certified copy of the report by the trial court dated 26.04.2022, is annexed in the instant application as annexure nos.6 and 7 respectively.

9. When the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. presented by the applicant, the private opposite party has also put her appearance instantly through her learned counsel namely Anil Kumar, Advocate in whose favour the private opposite party (the complainant) has duly executed vakalatnama. Her presence through vakalatnama is taken on record.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the private opposite party made a joint prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in aforesaid Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri on the basis of amicable settlement of dispute between them, as reflects from the compromise, made annexure no.6.

11. On perusal of the compromise, annexure no.6, undoubtedly it is a lawful agreement between the aforesaid applicant who is made accused in the Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, on lodging of first information report by the private opposite party. The same is duly verified also by the Trial Court in presence and attendance of signatories' thereof, in accordance with law.

12. From perusal of the F.I.R. version, it appears that none of the offence, in which the present accused-applicant is arraigned, is falling under those heinous offence like murder, rape or dacoity, which falls under the categories, categorized as heinous and inacceptable for mutual settlement between the offender and the victim, in the judgment of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

13. Reverting to the annexure no.6, the compromise entered between the aforesaid parties, obviously the complainant of the Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri (the private opposite party in the instant application) and the accused-applicant in the instant application and both have made their personal appearance before the trial court and the trial court on due identification from their learned counsels, has duly verified the compromise in terms of lawful agreement between the parties. The terms of the agreement make it further clear that, parties to the aforesaid criminal case are permanent resident of the same village, are well conversant with each other since a long, they have cordial relations but by reason of the incident reported in F.I.R., the relations became tense, however, now on mediation of reputed people of the village, friends and relatives, the parties have resiled their inimical relations and do not want to litigate any more, they amicably have settled their dispute without any coercion, with their free will.

14. The offences which were found made out from the evidences collected during investigation, on the basis whereof, the charge sheet dated 11.02.2020 is submitted before the trial court, appears some compoundable and non-compoundable offence both. Since, Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. provides competence of the trial court in compounding offences categorized therein only, therefore, the trial court did not drop the proceedings in terms of compromise, as the case is running before it for trial, involves some non-compoundable offence also. For the reason, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is submitted before this Court again with the aforesaid prayer of the dropping of the proceeding before the trial court in terms of the compromise.

15. The parties have representation through their counsels who asserted that the parties to the litigation before the trial court have willingly entered into the compromise with their free will without any undue pressure or coercion and their intention is clear to restore their cordial relations which was existing between them before the incident in question, for the reason of which, the F.I.R. was lodged and they are not willing to make further prosecution through the trial.

16. The trial, irrespective of their compromise, if continued, the entire exercise by the Court will ultimately be futile, therefore, in view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court's judgment in para 43 of the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (Supra). Para 42 is being quoted hereunder:-

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat and another[36], this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 IPC, were non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji alias Pappu33 and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:-

"10. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the Appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement insofar as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned.

11. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above".

17. Ultimately the question is whether the offences referred in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the trial, whether all the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise, made annexure no.6, are not willing to litigate any more, be permitted to do so and if it is, then what would be the fate of proceeding in the trial in question. Para 57 of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (Supra) answers and explains all the situations under such circumstances. Para 57 is quoted hereunder:-

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

18. In view of the above discussions, in exercise of the discretion vested in the Court which is extra ordinary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., (i) to stop the abuse of process of the Court and (ii) to ensure the ends of justice in terms of the compromise showing parties willingness to settle their dispute, the charge sheet dated 11.02.2020 as well as the summoning order dated 10.08.2020 in Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri is quashed consequent thereupon, the learned trial court is directed to drop the proceeding of Criminal Case No.965 of 2020 "State Vs. Ramesh Kumar", arising out of Case Crime No.754 of 2019, under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

19. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) to communicate this order of Court to learned trial Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge / F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri immediately.

20. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.5.2022

Saurabh