Rajesh Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5200 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2057 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitish Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Nitish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.6425 of 2015 (State Vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.498 of 2010, under Sections 323, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Bagwala, District- Etah, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Etah on the basis of Compromise Application dated 2.1.2023 filed by both the parties before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistate Court No.17, Etah.

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that initially N.C.R. was registered by Ravendra Singh, informant/opposite party No.2 against Rajesh Yadav s/o Rameswar Singh, Avlesh s/o Pancham Singh, Vinod s/o Maheshwar Singh and Nepal, s/o Yadram. Later on, keeping in view the nature of facts and texture of the case was changed and eventually the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 308 & 504 I.P.C. against the applicants. This matter pertains to year 2010 and however, on 2.1.2023 the parties have burred the hatchet and compromise was executed between them and duly signed by the informant namely, Ravendra Singh and four other charge-sheeted accused. Thereafter, the said compromise was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Etah and vide order dated 2.1.2023 the concerned Magistrate rejected the compromise in the light of the facts that it is not a compoundable offence under Section 320 I.P.C. and hence the settlement was ignored.

Today when the case was taken up, a short counter affidavit with Vakalatnama was filed by Mr. Nitish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2. This short counter affidavit is sworned by Ravendra Singh, informant/opposite party No.2 herein, and in its para no.7, informant has prayed that it is expedient in the interest of justice and in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, the entire criminal entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.6425 of 2015 (State Vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.498 of 2010, under Sections 323, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Bagwala, District- Etah, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Etah may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party No.2 has nodded in the affirmative and has submitted that as per the instructions from his client, there is a clear instruction that the matter be withdrawn against the applicant. This fact is not disputed that all the four persons have put their signatures over the compromise between the informant, Ravendra Singh and four charge-sheeted accused. Contention is that under the changed circumstances, entire proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise jotted down between the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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."

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and difference, the Court deems it proper to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed.

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

Sachin/