Anil Kumar Singhal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 23569 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172942
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15217 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singhal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukul Yadav,Rajesh Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and peruse the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 20.5.2004 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 5556 2009 (Smt. Omwati Vs. Anil Kumar Singhal and others), under Sections 452, 354, 324, 352 and 392 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Crime Against Women, Moradabad on the basis of compromise.

3. Record reveals that opposite party No. 2 has moved an application dated 30.1.2004 under Section 156 (3) CrPC with respect to incident dated 19.1.2004 against Anil Kumar Singhal (applicant herein) and Deepak Sharma. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad has issued process against Anil Kumar Singhal and Deepak Sharma under Sections 452, 354, 324, 352 and 392 IPC vide order dated 20.5.2004. As the matter proceeded, Anil Kumar Singhal has moved an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the entire proceeding on the basis of compromise. This Court while entertaining the instant matter, has passed the following order dated 4.7.2023:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 20.5.2004 passed by learned court below in Case No. 5556 of 2009 (Smt. Omwati Vs. Anil Kumar Singhal and others) under Sections 452, 354, 324, 352, 392 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Crime Against Women, Moradabad.

3. Instant application is arising out of complaint moved on behalf of opposite party No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and buried the hatchet. It is further submitted that both the parties have inked the compromise on 15.6.2022 and submitted before the court below. Certified copy of compromise is filed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. Therefore, complaint case filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 may be decided on the basis of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has nodded the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted the factum of compromise taken place between the parties and now there is no grudges with each other.

6. In this conspectus as above, learned trial court before whom complaint case and the compromise application dated 15.6.2022 are pending consideration, is hereby directed to verify the compromise in presence of both the parties and submit its verification report within a period of one month from the date of appearance of parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 25.07.2023.

7. List this matter on 28.08.2023, as fresh along with the verification report submitted by trial court concerned.

8. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 4.7.2023, Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC/Crime Against Women, Moradabad has verified the compromise by order dated 25.7.2023 and submitted a verification report dated 1.8.2023 with an observation that both the parties have been identified by their respective counsel and conditions of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Parties have stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties. Perusal of the report dated 1.8.2023 revels that Anil Kumar Singhal and Deepak Sharma, both were present in the court along with their counsel and entered into the compromise with opposite party No. 2, however, the present application has been filed alone by Anil Kumar Singhal, therefore, order of the date is being passed only with respect to Anil Kumar Singhal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant namely Anil Kumar Singhal may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

9. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 1.8.2023, compromise verification order dated 25.7.2023 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.

10. 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, so far as it relates to the present applicant namely Anil Kumar Singhal, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

vinay