Salman vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 23570 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173319
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42708 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Salman
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding and charge sheet no.118 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014 as well as cognizance order dated 26.07.2019 and summoning order dated 26.07.2019 in Case No.1284 of 2019 (State Vs. Salman), arising out of Case Crime No.232 of 2014, under sections 323 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that due to misunderstanding between the parties N.C.R has been lodged by respondent no.2, which was subsequently registered as an FIR being Case Crime No.232 of 2014. During trial both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise. On the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant this court has passed the following order dated 13.07.2023 referring the matter before the trial court for verification of compromise, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard Lokesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The applicant by means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1284 of 2019, under sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mauaima, district-Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad (Prayagraj), as well as chargesheet dated 26.6.2014 and summoning order dated 26.7.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying present petition.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the matter has been compromised and the opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

In view of above, it is provided that the applicant shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned trial Court within 10 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the trial court shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall submit compromise verification report till 27.8.2023. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.

List this case as fresh on 27.8.2023 before appropriate Court along with compromise verification report of the concerned trial Court.

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

5. In pursuance of the order dated 13.07.2023, learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj has submitted its verification report dated 26.07.2023 along with a copy of compromise and the verification endorsement made by the court concerned on the reverse side of the first page of compromise application.

6. Perusal of verification report reveals that both the parties were personally present before the court who have been identified by their respective counsels. They admitted the factum of compromise and states that they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress.

7. 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 C.J.M. 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. 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 A.G.A has submitted that he has no objection in deciding the present application on the basis of the compromise which has duly been verified by the court concerned.

10. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 26.07.2023 and the endorsement of the trial court verifying the compromise on the reverse side of first page of compromise application, 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 proceedings in in Case No.1284 of 2019 (State Vs. Salman), arising out of Case Crime No.232 of 2014, under sections 323 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

A Gautam