Kuldeep @ Sonu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 35193 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kuldeep @ Sonu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238127
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43970 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Kuldeep @ Sonu And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Ojha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Mishra
 

 
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 Criminal Case No.6190 of 2020 (State vs. Kuldeep Singh @ Sonu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.288 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 2, Kanpur Dehat on the basis of compromise.

3. Having considered the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 6.2.2023, has directed the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties and submit a verification report. For ready reference, the order dated 6.2.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present.

It is submitted by both the parties that they are neighbours and they have arrived at a compromise.

As the parties have arrived at a compromise and the dispute is personal, the compromise would not effect the society adversely. As some of the sections involved are non-compoundable, hence, the prayer is made to direct the trial court to verify the compromise of the parties so that it may be placed before this Court for accepting the same.

As the parties have arrived at a compromise, some of the sections involved are non-compoundable and the dispute is personal, therefore, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today and file their compromise in the trial court. If the parties submit their compromise within time stipulated, the trial court shall verify the compromise deed, pass an order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed along with the certified copy of the order passed thereon, to this court within 15 days thereafter.

It is further prayed by the parties that originally, in the F.I.R., there were six accused persons and previously the charge sheet was filed against four accused persons later on charge sheet was filed against rest two persons also with regard to second charge sheet an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41591 of 2022, was moved by those two applicants and in that case also, the parties have arrived at a compromise and their compromise is said to have been verified by the trial court, hence both the files be put together so that the same order may be passed in both the files.

Prayer is allowed.

Till the date fixed, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants pursuant to Criminal Case No.6190 of 2020 (State vs. Kuldeep Singh @ Sonu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.288 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate 2, Kanpur Dehat.

Let the present application be listed along with Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.41591 of 2022 on 24.03.2022."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 6.2.2023 passed by this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat has submitted a verification report dated 20.2.2023 along with a copy of the compromise and compromise verification order dated 19.2.2023. Perusal of compromise verification order dated 17.2.2023 reveals that photographs of respective parties was affixed on the compromise and both the parties have appeared before the court below, and they have also been identified by their respective counsel. The contents of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and further stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition and without any duress or coercion. Accordingly, compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties.

5. 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 20.2.2023 as well as compromise verification order dated 17.2.2023, 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.

6. 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."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 20.2.2023, compromise verification order dated 17.2.2023 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.

10. 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.

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

Order Date :- 15.12.2023

vinay