Neeraj And 4 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21513 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163710
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10219 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Neeraj And 4 Ors
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neetu Singh,Shabbir Hasan
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 20.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No. 223 of 2019 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.66 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Baghpat, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

3. Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR, being case crime no. 0066 of 2018 dated 08.09.2018, making an allegations of torture and cruelty against the present applicants for demand of dowry. Before initiation of trial parties have entered into the compromise and settled their dispute amicably. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants parties were relegated before the trial court for verification of the compromise vide order dated 20.9.2022, which is quoted herein below :-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the charge sheet dated 20.12.2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Baghpat arising out of Case Crime No.66 of 2018 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them.

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that as the opp. parties are not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicants is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification report of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit.

List this case on 15th November, 2022.

The further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed till the next date of listing with regard to the applicants."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has field the supplementary affidavit dated 11.7.2023 annexing the certified copy of the compromise. On the back side of the second page of compromise, order dated 26.5.2023 has been endorsed by the court concerned verifying the compromise filed by the parties.

5. Perusal of the order dated 26.5.2023 passed by court below reveals that in pursuance of the order dated 20.9.2022 passed by this Court parties were present along with their respective counsel and the terms of the compromise has been spelled out to them who have admitted the factum of the compromise and, accordingly, compromise has been verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned trial court verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

7. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

8. In judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) 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 provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) 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.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant 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;

(iv) 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;

(v) 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;

(vi) In 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 approximately 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;

(vii) 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) 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;

(ix) 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

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

10. With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The charge sheet dated 20.12.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No. 223 of 2019 (State Vs. Neeraj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.66 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Baghpat, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat is hereby quashed.

12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

13. Before parting the matter learned counsel for the applicant requested to return the amount of Rs.19,000/- which has been deposited before the Mediation Centre in pursuance of the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by this Court inasmuch as till date no mediation session has been taken place. In pursuance of the said order none has appeared before the Mediation Centre.

14. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has nodded the submission as raised by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that till date no mediation session took place.

15. Vide order dated 29.3.2019 a direction was issued to the applicants to deposit the Rs.20,000/- out of which Rs.19,000/- was order to be reimbursed in faovur of the opposite party No.2.

16. In this view of the matter, Mediation Centre of this Court is hereby directed to return Rs.19,000/- to the opposite party No.2 in accordance with law, in case she moves application claiming such amount in pursuance of the order dated 29.3.2019.

Order Date :- 10.8.2023

Md Faisal