Allahabad High Court
Mintu Rajak @ Rajendra And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171326
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20247 of 2023
Applicant :- Mintu Rajak @ Rajendra And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Babu Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Dwivedi,Vimal Kumar Verma
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 and perused the record on board.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated 08.06.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 281 of 2022 (State Vs. Mintu Rajak @ Rajendra & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2022, under Sections 34, 294, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, and also to quash the cognizance order dated 18.06.2022, pending before District & Sessions Judge, Lalitpur on the basis of compromise.
3. With respect to the incident dated 18.3.2022 opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR being Case Crime No.0158 of 2022 dated 18.3.2022. During pendency of trial, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.12.2022, has relegated the parties before the trial court to file an application for verification of the compromise. For ready reference the order dated 13.6.2023 is quoted herein below :-
"Short counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of charge-sheet dated 8.6.2022, cognizance order dated 18.6.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.281 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Mintu Rajak @ Rajendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 2022, under Sections 34, 294, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur pending before the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants. The compromise has taken place on 12.4.2023 and the compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of application.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
In view of above facts, the applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.
Put up as fresh on 24.7.2023, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
4. In pursuance of the order dated 13.6.2023 learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit, along with the certified copy of the verification order dated 21.06.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur.
5. Perusal of the verification order dated 21.06.2023 reveals that Sessions Judge has verified the compromise (Paper No.83Ka) in presence of both the parties who have been identified by their respective counsels. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that conditions of the compromise has been spelled out in open court to the parties who have admitted that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.
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 Sessions Judge 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/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 charge sheet dated 08.06.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 281 of 2022 (State Vs. Mintu Rajak @ Rajendra & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2022, under Sections 34, 294, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur and cognizance order dated 18.06.2022, pending before District & Sessions Judge, Lalitpur is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Md Faisal
