Rakesh Raikwar @ Fauji And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1694 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 430 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rakesh Raikwar @ Fauji And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Bhushan Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arunkumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

By means of the instant application the applicant is pleased to quash the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1826 of 2017 (Dharmendra Yadav Vs. Atar Singh Yadav and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of C.J.M., Jhansi as well as summoning order dated 18.01.2021.

Contention raised by the counsel that Dharmendra Yadav is a complainant of complaint case no. 1826 of 2017 under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of C.J.M., Jhansi and in this complaint vide summoning order dated 18.01.2021 Atar Singh Yadav, Rakesh Raikawar @ Fauzi and Motilal were summoned to face the prosecution under Sections 452, 323, 504 IPC. It appears that there is truce and compromise between Rakesh Raikawar @ Fauzi and Dharmendra Singh excluded Atar Singh Yadav and on this ground it is alleged by learned counsel for the applicant that proceeding against the applicants may be quashed and dropped.

The Court has put very important question as to whether any compromise may take place in peace meal.

In reply to it, Sri Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants has taken recourse of three citations, in the case of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujrat and another reported in 2013(4)SCC(Crl.)668, Sunil Tomar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another reported in 2022 LawSuit (Del)857 and Sukhdeep Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 27.09.2022. In Sunil Tomar (supra) case, it has been opined that :-

"9.Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/ accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the petitioner/ accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the parties. Reliance can be placed on Poonam Khanna Vs. State and others in Crl. M.C. No. 3690 of 2016 dated 30.01.2018."

Thus under these circumstances, it is permissible to have a peace meal compromise with few of accused persons.

Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit sworn by complainant himself, which is taken on record, in which in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit categorically pointed out that he has come with the terms of aforementioned two applicants only. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

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

(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 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."

Taking the help of these 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 application stands allowed.

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 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 after explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

Let copy of this order may be transmitted to the concerned court within twenty days.

Order Date :- 17.1.2023

Abhishek Sri.