Raju Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 21930 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164606
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28557 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Raju Pandey And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

3. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 14 of 2011 (State vs. Raju Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2009 under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Purani Basti, District Basti as well as impugned chargesheet dated 16.03.2009 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.05.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti on the basis of compromise dated 01.11.2022.

4. With respect to the incident dated 27.02.2009, an FIR, being Case Crime No. 159 of 2009 dated 01.03.2009, has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2. During trial both the parties have entered into compromise and accordingly moved an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44048 of 2022 (Raju Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and another) to quash the entire proceeding. This Court, vide order dated 16.02.2023, has disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction that applicants may appear before the court concerned for verification of the compromise and it will be open for the applicants to approach before this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. For ready reference, order dated 16.02.2023 is quoted herein below:

"Vakalatnama along with Short counter affidavit have been filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for opposite party no.2, in Court today, are taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 23.05.2009 of Special Sessions Trial No.14 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Raju Pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No.159 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Purani Basti, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Basti.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the application wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case against the applicants. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

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 the period of two months or till the verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court, learned court below has passed the order dated 17.03.2023 verifying the compromise taken place between the parties. It is observed in the order dated 17.03.2023 that both the parties are present personally and are identified by their respective counsels. Accordingly, the compromise is verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the eventuality of the compromise taken place between the parties and the verification order dated 17.03.2023 verifying the compromise, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings going on before the trial court may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and now living peacefully and there is no grudges between them against each other.

7. To quash the cognizance/summoning 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 a recent 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 the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 14 of 2011 (State vs. Raju Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2009 under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Purani Basti, District Basti as well as impugned chargesheet dated 16.03.2009 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.05.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 16.8.2023

Vandit