Dr Suraj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 35588 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dr Suraj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 December, 2023

Author: Dinesh Pathak

Bench: Dinesh Pathak

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239815
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34657 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Dr Suraj Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of impugned summoning order dated 07.04.2021 and criminal proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No.1398 of 2019 (New No.5491 of 2021) (Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs. Dr. Suraj Kumar), under Sections 468, 384 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Bareilly, on the basis of compromise.

3. It is submitted that the instant matter is essentially a land dispute which has been dragged into the criminal proceeding. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.11.2022, has directed the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties and submit a verification report. For ready reference order dated 16.11.2022 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of summoning order dated 7.4.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case no. 1398 of 2019, under sections 468, 384 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly (Mahesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dr. Suraj Kumar) pending in the court of C.J.M. Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 1.9.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

List after two months.

Until further orders of the court, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, has submitted the verification report dated 20.12.2022 and verification order dated 20.12.2022 along with copy of the compromise.

5. Perusal of compromise verification order dated 20.12.2022 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise and now there is no grudges between them against each other. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the eventuality of the amicable settlement took place between the parties and compromise verification order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed.

7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, who are living peacefully. It is further submitted that to observe the peace and tranquility in the life of both the parties, instant matter is required to be decided finally in the light of the settlement. To quash the cognizance 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 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 application and compromise verification order dated 20.12.2022 verifying the 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 application and compromise verification order dated 20.12.2022 took place between 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 order dated 20.12.2022 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 verification order dated 20.12.2022, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 18.12.2023

Jitendra