Chandrapal Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2146 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 889 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Chandrapal Singh And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceeding including cognizance order dated 11.8.2017 and charge-sheet dated 28.6.2017 in S.T. No.263 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.189 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Chandrapal and others), under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Rajabpur, District-Amroha, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that Sudhir Kumar (opposite party no.2) has lodged the present FIR at P.S.-Rajabpur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar on 01.5.2017 u/s 308 I.P.C. against Chandrapal, Komal and Tasviri. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against all three accused-applicants u/s 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. on 28.6.2017 and cognizance of the offence was taken on 11.8.2017 by the concerned Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that after intervention of certain well meaning persons, a better sense has prevailed on the parties, resultantly, the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the compromise deed dated 10.11.2021 executed in between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to this petition. The compromise deed dated 10.11.2021 is duly signed by Chandrapal, Komal, Tasviri on one side and Sushir Kumar and Dilip Kumar on the other side. Not only this, the injured Dileep Kumar has filed his own personal affidavit exonerating the applicants from the offence.

Perusal of injury report of the injured indicates that except a traumatic contused swelling over the top of skull, there is no other injury over his person. Besides this, C.T. Scan of the injured also indicates that there is hemorrhagic contusion right temporo-parietal region and fracture in right temporo-parietal region. As per opinion of doctor the injury received by the injured has been caused by some hard and blunt object.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that out of three named accused persons, Chandrapal and Tasviri were having lathi-danda in their hands, whereas Komal was carrying axe in her hand. There is no injury caused by axe over the person of injured. There are two persons said to have assaulted by lathi and danda upon the injured, but fact remains that there is singular injury over the person of the injured. Now under the changed scenario, whereby the injured himself has submitted that he does not want to pursue the case against the applicants, therefore, in view of the light of law laid down in the case of NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466, the criminal prosecution against the applicants may be quashed in the light of the compromise executed between the parties.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 though challenged the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, but has accepted that his clients have given an affidavit in favour of applicants and now they do not want to pursue the case any further. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also confirmed the covenants and signatories of the compromise and submitted that the proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicants has also 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 differences, this Court deems it proper and 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 proceeding of the present case against the applicants, is hereby quashed.

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 and 3. 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 :- 20.1.2023

M. Kumar