Shailesh Pandey And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2149 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1451 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Hans
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Ms. Pashali Solanki, Advocate filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 namely Pooja Pandey, which is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 impugned charge sheet dated 11.01.2021 arising out of F.I.R. dated 8.6.2016 registered as Case Crime No.181 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Khuldabad, District-Allahabad.

This is one of those unfortunate cases where the Advocates of this Court, who are husband and wife, were at warring ends, but it seems that a better sense has prevailed on them and they have buried their differences and dispute and now they have come to terms. Fortunately, the contesting parties are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. Both the contesting parties have stated that they are residing happily with each other as husband and wife. They have also assured the Court that even in future they would settle down their scores within the four corners of their house and would not lock horns.

Perusal of settlement agreement dated 8.12.2022, annexued as Annexure-7 to the petition, indicates that the husband and the wife have decided to withdraw all the cases pending between them within two months and would reside together peacefully as husband and wife.

Learned counsel for opposite party has averred that the opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the matter any more against the applicants as there is dispute left between them and they are ready to live together happily as husband and wife. 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 and would be in the interest of justice that the charge sheet may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

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."

From the perusal of record of the case it is clear that only charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and no cognizance of the offence has been taken as yet. Even in the circumstances when no cognizance has been taken, this Court is at liberty to exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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 and also the compromise between the parties, this Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the impugned charge sheet submitted against the applicants 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 submitted against the applicants, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 20.1.2023

M. Kumar