Sachin vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1409 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 396 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sachin
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of CNR No. UPJB01005286 of 2017 out of Case Crime No. 350 of 2017, under Sectins 342, 354B, 376, 511 of IPC and Section 7/8 The Protection of Childrren From Secual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Adampur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) as well as summoning order dated 07.04.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Court, POCSO Act, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Court, POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset have drawn attention of the Court to the alleged tafsianama "compromise deed" dated 24.11.2022 copy of which is annexed as annexure 7 to the application. This compromise deed is signed by the applicant Jaipal on one hand and Amarwati and Pooja on the other hand.

The genesis of the case starts from lodging of the FIR by Amarwati wife of Brahm Singh indicating the incident on 16.06.2017 of which the FIR was registered on 17.07.2017, under Section 342, 354B, 376, 511 and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Adampur, District Amroha. The subject matter of this incident is that victim is Ms. P (16 years of age) the accused persons were Sachin Mohit and Jaipal. The long and short of the case is that the victim went to agricultural field to provide lunch to his father en-route she was ambushed by the named accused persons and started misbehaving and touching her indecently and they have dragged her in the nearby sugarcane filed to quench their animal stinct and commit sexual offence. They have tried to disrobe the girl after over powering her in meanwhile her uncle reached over on the spot and the assailant fled away from the site. He further submits that police has submitted a closure report under the aforesaid section of IPC vide order dated 25.07.2017 but same was protested.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 07.04.2022 brush aside the closure report filed by the police and instead of her taken away under Section 190(1)(B) of the Cr.P.C. under Section 342, 354B, 376, 511 and 7/8 POCSO Act against Sachin, Mohit and against Jaipal under Section 342, 354, 376/511 and 7/8 POCSO Act read with Section 120B IPC.

Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the compromise arrived at between the parties which is annexed as annexure 7 to the application whereby the informant Amrawati has given an affidavit in favour of the applicant and the alleged tafsianama "compromise deed" signed by all the stakeholder of the case including the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.

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 "DPARBATBHAI 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 differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. 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 proceeding of CNR No. UPJB01005286 of 2017 out of Case Crime No. 350 of 2017, under Sectins 342, 354B, 376, 511 of IPC and Section 7/8 The Protection of Childrren From Secual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Adampur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) as well as summoning order dated 07.04.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Court, POCSO Act, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Court, POCSO Act against the applicant, is hereby quashed.

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

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

Order Date :- 13.1.2023

Ujjawal