Neeraj Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17551 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142480
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13262 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Neeraj Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nagendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record on board.

2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2926 of 2016 (State Vs. Neeraj Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2015, under Sections 376, 363, 366, 386 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

3. As per FIR version accused/applicant has seduced the victim (first informant) and made physical relations on the pretext of marriage. During pendency of the prosecution both the parties have amicably settled their dispute.

4. Considering the settlement between the parties this Court has passed the order dated 18.7.2022 directing the lower court for the verification of the compromise, which is quoted herein below :

"Vide order dated 3.7.2018 and 6.7.2022, the compromise deed application dated 6.8.2018 is available on file.

Let the compromise deed at page no. 31-32 on the file vide Annexure-6 may be verified by the lower court concerned.

Parties to appear before the lower court concerned on 2.8.2022 and the same shall be verified and the court concerned shall pass appropriate order in regard thereto and the report shall be transmitted forthwith to this Court.

List on 16.8.2022.

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Case No. 2926 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2015, under Sections- 376, 363, 366, 386, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 18.7.2022 learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has submitted his verification report dated 10.8.2022. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has specifically observed in its verification report dated 10.8.2022 that the compromise inked between the parties and both the parties have appeared personally on 5.8.2023 along with the original copy of the compromise, accordingly compromise has been verified in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of aforesaid verification report dated 10.8.2022 submits that now both the parties have tied the nuptial knot and living happy married life and there is no grudges against each other.

7. He has further submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned C.M.M. verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding may be quashed. Now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other. It is further submitted in the light of the judgment dated 10.8.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 [SLP (CRL) No. 5806 of 2022], Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCR of Delhi & another that, even criminal cases u/s 376 of I.P.C. can be decided finally on the basis of compromise.

8. To quash the cognizance/summoning order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

9. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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 recognises 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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise 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."

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

11. With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2926 of 2016 (State Vs. Neeraj Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2015, under Sections 376, 363, 366, 386 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed.

13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

Order Date :- 17.7.2023

Md Faisal