Aalim And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17841 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143879
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21268 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Aalim And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

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

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 1585/9 of 2020 (Now Case No. 8336/9 of 2022) (State Vs. Aalim & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2020, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kairana, District Shamli, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana.

3. Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 0114 of 2020. During pendency of criminal proceedings parties have entered into compromise. This Court, vide order dated 6.6.2023, has remitted the parties before the court below for verification of compromise. For ready reference order dated 6.6.2023 is quoted herein below :

"Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.1585/9 of 2020(Now Case No.8336/9 of 2022), State vs. Aalim & others, arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2020 under Section 147,308,323,325,452,504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into the compromise dated 22.3.2023. A copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.

Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

In view of above, it is provided that the applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application, shall also be given a certified copy of the report.

Put up as fresh on 18.7.2023 before appropriate Bench, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 6.6.2023 learned trial court has passed verification order dated 22.6.2023. Certified copy of the verification order dated 22.6.2023 and certified copy of compromise are collectively filed as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record. Learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Kairana, Shamli has observed in its compromise verification order dated 22.6.2023 that both the parties have been identified by their respective counsels and the terms of the compromise has been spelled out to both the parties who have made their respective thumb impression/signature over the compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. verifying the compromise took place between the parties now they have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other. Therefore, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed.

6. 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. 1585/9 of 2020 (Now Case No. 8336/9 of 2022) (State Vs. Aalim & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2020, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kairana, District Shamli, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

Md Faisal