Suresh Chandra Sagar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 35031 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suresh Chandra Sagar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237220
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9509 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Sagar And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 5313 of 2020 (State Vs. Suresh Chandra and another) arising out of the Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on the basis of compromise.

4. It is submitted that owing to some confusion relating to the transfer of property, Opposite Party No. 2 has lodged an FIR against the present applicants. During pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement, this Court, vide order dated 24.5.2023, has issued a direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise. For ready reference, the order dated 24.5.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings of Case No. 5313 of 2020, State v. Suresh Chandra & another, (arising out of Case Crime No.368 of 2019), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323, 504 & 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Katghar, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have compromised their dispute outside Court and reduced the terms of settlement to writing on affidavit on 13.02.2023. The attention of this Court has been invited to a photostat copy of the compromise recorded between the parties dated 13.02.2023. It is a compromise engrossed on a general stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- and notarized.

Let a properly done compromise be filed within two days before the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 5313 of 2020, State v. Suresh Chandra & another, (arising out of Case Crime No.368 of 2019), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323, 504 & 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Katghar, District - Moradabad within three days. The Magistrate, upon presentation of the compromise, will verify the same by the date fixed, without fail, and, forward a copy thereof to this Court along with a certified copy of his order, verifying the compromise.

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, returnable on 31.05.2023.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad shall ensure service upon opposite party no. 2 and submit a report regarding service, positively by the date scheduled.

List this application in the additional cause list on 31.05.2023. Liberty to mention.

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 5313 of 2020, State v. Suresh Chandra & another, (arising out of Case Crime No.368 of 2019), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323, 504 & 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Katghar, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

This order shall, however, not hinder the Magistrate in verifying the compromise.

Let this order be communicated to the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad and to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad through the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad by the Registrar (Compliance) within next 48 hours."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 24.5.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, New Court No. 2, Moradabad has submitted a verification report dated 29.5.2023 along with copy of the compromise and other relevant documents. A perusal of the verification report dated 29.5.2023 and the compromise verification order dated 29.5.2023 reveals that both the parties (first informant and all the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel. Contents of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned in the presence of the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 29.5.2023 and compromise verification order 29.5.2023, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants 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.

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 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.

10. 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.

11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 29.5.2023, compromise verification order dated 29.5.2023 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.

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 the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 14.12.2023

vinay