Narwad And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 34600 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Narwad And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235533
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12452 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Narwad And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ghan Shyam,Prem Sagar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the private respondent (complainant) 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 the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District Jalaun in Complaint Case No.352 of 2017 (Surendra Singh Vs. Narwad and 5 others) under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Orai, District Jalaun, on the basis of compromise, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District Jalaun.

3. It is submitted that, being annoyed qua transfer of property in question, complainant (respondent No.3) has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the contents of the application and statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has issued process against the present applicants under Section 420 I.P.C. vide order impugned dated 18.10.2021. During pendency of proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. It is further submitted that during pendency of the proceeding one accused namely, Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi s/o Rameshwar Dayal Dwivedi had died on 02.06.2022, which is evident from the death certificate, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit sworn on 18.07.2023, filed on 20.07.2023.

4. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties this Court vide order dated 27.10.2023 has directed the parties to get their compromise verified from the court concerned. For ready reference order dated 27.10.2023, is quoted herein below :-

"1. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably and they have inked compromise dated 6.5.2023. It is further submitted that during pendency of the proceeding, the applicant No. 4 namely Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi has died. It is next submitted that instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. Photostat copy of the compromise application dated 6.5.2023 has been filed as annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.7.2023.

2. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 6/7.11.2023 and file the original copy of the compromise application before it. On compromise application being filed, the trial court shall verify the compromise application in the presence of the parties after recording their statements and submit his verification report within one month from the date of appearance of the parties.

3. List this matter on 11.12.2023 along with the verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

4. Till the next date of listing, interim order, if any, is extended."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai has submitted compromise verification report dated 09.11.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 06.11.2023 and the compromise application. Perusal of verification order and the verification report reveals that complainant namely, Surendra Singh and accused (applicants herein) namely, Narwad, Om Prakash, Lakhan Lal Gupta, Baij Nath Verma and Rajkumar Maheswari were appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsels. They have admitted that factum of compromise and, accordingly, compromise has been verified in their presence.

6. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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.

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 private opposite party (complainant) 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. 3 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 order dated 18.10.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Orai, District Jalaun in Complaint Case No.352 of 2017 (Surendra Singh Vs. Narwad and 5 others) under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Orai, District Jalaun is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 11.12.2023

Md Faisal