Vilekan @ Yavnesh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 33690 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vilekan @ Yavnesh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:229578
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34442 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Vilekan @ Yavnesh And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Rathore
 

 
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.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated 22.04.2018 and summoning order dated 10.05.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.47 of 2018 (State Vs. Vilekan @ Yavnesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.226 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gohan, District Jalaun, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that accused and victim have solemnized their marriage. However, at later stage, victim has died. First informant and the accused have arrived at compromise and settle their dispute amicably out of the court. Considering the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023 directed the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties after verifying the death of victim. For ready reference the order dated 05.10.2023 is quoted herein below :-

"1. Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathaur, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathaur as counsel for the respondent when the case is listed next.

3. It is submitted that, owing to annoyance of the parents of the victim, an F.I.R. has been lodged against applicant no. 1 (main accused) and his family members. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has shown herself as major and stated that she went with main accused on her own volition without any durace or coercion, who has not committed any wrong with her. It is further submitted that main accused and the victim had solemnized their marriage, however, at later stage victim had died on 03.12.2021 due to illness. Learned counsel for the applicant states that till date charges have not been framed. During this period the first informant (respondent no. 2) and the present applicants (accused) have arrived at a compromise and settlement their dispute out of the court. Copy of the compromise application has been filed as Annexure No. 12. Perusal of the compromise reveals that the victim and the main accused have solemnized their marriage and due to illness victim had died on 03.12.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has nodded the submissions as raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and alleged that instant matter may be decided on the basis of the compromise inasmuch first informant has no grudges against the present applicant.

5. In this conspectus, as above, learned court concerned, before whom matter is pending consideration, is hereby directed to verify the factum of death of the victim, who is reported to be died on 03.12.2021. After verifying the death of the victim, the court concerned shall proceed to verify the compromise, to be filed by the parties, in their presence, after recording their statement, and submit a verification report within a period of one month from the date of their appearance, who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned and file compromise on 30.10.2023.

6. List this matter on 04.12.2023 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 47 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, pending in the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Jalaun."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Jalaun at Orai has submitted verification report dated 02.11.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 01.11.2023 and compromise application dated 04.08.2023. Perusal of compromise verification report dated 02.11.2023 as well as compromise verification order dated 01.11.2023 reveals that veracity of death of victim has been authenticated by the local police who appear as C.W.-1. First informant appeared as P.W.-1 who has authenticated factum of compromise. Contents of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress, accordingly, compromise has been verified.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned dditional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Jalaun at Orai 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.

6. 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

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 22.04.2018 and summoning order dated 10.05.2018 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.47 of 2018 (State Vs. Vilekan @ Yavnesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.226 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gohan, District Jalaun is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 4.12.2023

Md Faisal