Shesh Narayan @ Chhotayee And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22941 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170082
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21009 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shesh Narayan @ Chhotayee And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. List revised. None is present on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of charge sheet no. 236 of 2020 dated 22.12.2020 submitted by Investigating Officer against the applicant No. 1 under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506, 308 1.P.C. and against the applicant No. 2, under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 236 of 2020, under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506 1.P.C. P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi as well as cognizance order dated 8.3.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi- Gyanpur in Case No. 842 of 2021 (State Vs. Sheshnarayan @ Chhotayee and another) and entire proceeding of Case No. 842 of 2021 (State Vs. Sheshnarayan @ Chhotayee and another) pending before A.C.J.M., Bhadohi- Gyanpur.

4. With respect to the incident dated 26.10.2020, opposite party No. 2 has lodged an FIR, being Case Crime No. 236 of 2020 dated 20.10.2020, with allegation that the present applicants (accused) have badly thrashed the victim while he has resisted to the applicants for getting the fence of his agricultural field broken. After submission of charge sheet, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.6.2023, has relegated the parties before the trial court for the verification of the compromise, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC/Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Complaint Case No.26246 of 2021 (Geeta Devi vs. Ram Nivas and others) under sections 147,323,427,452,504,506, I.P.C Police Station Chandauli District Chandauli and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that parties have settled the matter through compromise. One of the condition in the compromise is that parties will not pursue the case lodged against each other. But in absence of the opposite party no.2 it will be justified to verify whether the compromise which is stated to be filed before the learned concerned court is verified by the court below or not.

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the applicants it is directed that both the parties may appear before the court below and file a written compromise within two weeks.

Upon the said compromise being filed before the court below, it shall after due identification, verify the compromise. The court concerned shall forward to this Court a duly verified copy of the compromise entered into between the parties along with a copy of its order verifying the compromise which shall be sent before the next date fixed.

List on 07.08.2023 as fresh.

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

Office will ensure the compliance of the aforesaid order and will transmit the copy of the compromise along with copy of the order to the trial court through the concerned Session Judge within three days. "

5. In pursuance of the order dated 12.6.2023, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, Bhadohi has submitted his report dated 24.7.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 12.7.2023.

6. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 12.7.2023 reveals that both the parties have personally appeared before the court below through counsel and they have also identified by their respective counsel. A copy of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, has been annexed with the said report. Terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they have buried the hatchet and now they have no grudges against each other. Accordingly, the compromise has been duly verified by the court below.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that with respect to the incident in question, a cross NCR No. 255 of 2020 has been filed by the father of the applicant No. 1 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. Based on compromise took place between the parties, said NCR has been decided and opposite party No. 2 has been exonerated vide order dated 12.7.2023. Certified copy of the order dated 12.7.2023 has been filed as annexure No. SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried their hatchet and are living peacefully, therefore, instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. 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 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 AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

10. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 24.7.2023, compromise verification order dated 12.7.2023 as well as the order 12.7.2023 passed in cross NCR No. 255 of 2020 and 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 entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case 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

vinay