Allahabad High Court
Rinku Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174668
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21163 of 2018
Applicant :- Rinku Sharma And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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 applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.13712 of 2016 (Nathuram Vs. Harish Dixit and Another), under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh and also to quash the summoning order dated 18.04.2017 and non bailable warrant order dated 10.05.2018, on the basis of compromise.
3. On the complaint moved on behalf of the Nathuram (opposite party No.2) learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued process against the present applicants under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., vide order dated 18.04.2017. During pendency of case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and inked compromise.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that summoning order dated 18.04.2017 has been passed against the present applicants, namely, Rinku and Robby @ Jitendra along with 2 other accused namely, Harish Dixit and Akash Dixit under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. However, Harish Dixit and Akash Dixit have preferred separate application u/s 482 No.21125 of 2023. The said application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was finally decided by this Court, vide order dated 25.7.2023 on the basis of compromise. It is further submitted that in the compromise application dated 15.03.2023 present applicants were also party and made their signatures on the compromise application and the compromise was verified by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.07.2023, which is filed as Annexure-No.1 to the supplementary affidavit.
5. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 10.07.2023 reveals that Nathuram Sharma and victim Manish Sharma were identified by their counsels, namely, Sri Sarika Varshnay and accused namely, Harish Dixit, Akash, Rinku Sharma and Robby @ Jitendra have been identified by their counsel Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma. In presence of parties learned trial court has verified the compromise. Considering the aforesaid verification order dated 10.7.2023 this Court has decided the Application u/s 482 No.21125 of 2023 which was filed on behalf of the remaining accused namely, Harish Dixit and Akash Dixit. In this view of the matter, instant application is liable to be decided as well on the basis of said compromise verification order dated 10.7.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the compromise verification order passed by by the learned trial court 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 applicants 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 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 contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court concerned.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 Complaint Case No.13712 of 2016 (Nathuram Vs. Harish Dixit and Another), under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh and summoning order dated 18.04.2017 as well as non bailable warrant order dated 10.05.2018 is hereby quashed.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Md Faisal
