Allahabad High Court
Bhaiyalal Patel And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anothers on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168423
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11741 of 2023
Applicant :- Bhaiyalal Patel And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Saran Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Srivastava
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. Case was heard on 14.7.2023, Court has passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Sharad Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 01.10.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2016 (Shravan Kumar Sonkar Vs. Bhaiya Lal Patel and others) u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 had settled their dispute out of the court and they have filed compromise in the trial court and no dispute remains between them. He has made a prayer that the case may be disposed of according to the compromise. The applicants have attached the certified copy of the compromise/agreement of settlement as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. It was also prayed by way of compromise that the impugned proceeding against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants regarding compromise/agreement of settlement made by the applicants.
5. From the perusal of the order sheet of the criminal complaint case, it transpires that charge has not been framed and the case is pending for appearance of accused, Chhota Patel.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR, 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Though Section-354 I.P.C. is a non compoundable offence but fact remains that the dispute is private in nature and the first informant (opposite party no.2), does not want to pursue the proceeding against the applicants any more.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also relied upon the judgment of The State of Madhya Pradesh VS. Laxmi Narayan and others in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 decided on 05.03.2019 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no.13 that :
"(i) 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;"
8. Even in the cases which involved non-compoundable offences, their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court, if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. So far as the present case is concerned, it does not involve heinous and serious offences as categorized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case law and that the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences between the parties and also does not have serious impact on society.
9. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the trial court along with a certified copy of this order within 15 days from today and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification till 14.08.2023. Upon due verification, the trial court may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court till 18.08.2023.
10. Let a report be also summoned from the District Social Welfare Officer, Kaushambi whether any compensation has been paid in the Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2016 (Shravan Kumar Sonkar Vs. Bhaiya Lal Patel and others) u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, or not.
11. Put up this case on 22.08.2023 as a fresh case along with the compromise verification report as well as report of District Social Welfare Officer, Kaushambi.
12. Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants although trial of the case may continue.
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.7.2023, learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Kaushabmi has submitted its report on 31.7.2023 verifying the compromise deed entered between the parties.
4. Sri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not disputed the aforesaid facts and also submitted that in case aforesaid proceeding is quashed, he would have no objection.
5. In view of above, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
6. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the summoning order dated 01.10.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 99 of 2016 (Shravan Kumar Sonkar Vs. Bhaiya Lal Patel and others) u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi is hereby quashed. Before closing the proceeding, learned trial Court is directed to ascertain as to whether any amount of compensation received by the informant or not. In case, informant received compensation amount, he shall ensure the deposit of the same before closing the aforesaid proceeding.
7. The present application is, accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.8.2023
Junaid
