Manoj And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 17843 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144098
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21184 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chandra Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A/R0922,R.S. Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Sri R.S. Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

2. 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.

3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.4.2017 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 1299 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Lal & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 878 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun and the cognizance order dated 24.7.2017, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that to quash the instant criminal proceeding previously an application u/s 482 No. 33770 of 2022 had been filed which was finally disposed of, vide order dated 2.11.2022 (Annexure No.9) passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, directing the parties to get their compromise verified from the trial court and liberty was granted as well to the parties to approach before this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of verified compromise. For ready reference the order dated 2.11.2022 is quoted herein below :

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shir R.S. Maurya, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court by way of entering into compromise which is on record as Annexure No. 8 to the petition. It is further submitted that since the dispute has been settled outside the Court by the parties, the said compromise may be directed to be verified by the competent authority so that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of said compromise and its verification report.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 concedes the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

In view of the above the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 24.11.2022 along with the copy of original compromise deed, who shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties.

For a period of two month, the Criminal Case No. 1299 of 2017 "State Vs. Manoj Lal and others" under section 452, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 878 of 2016, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun, shall be kept in abeyance.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 2.11.2022 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun has passed the compromise verification order dated 24.11.2022. Certified copy of the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun and the copy of compromise are collectively been filed as Annexure No.10 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in its order dated 24.11.2022 has observed 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 admitted the factum of compromise and now there is no dispute between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report dated 24.11.2022 submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun 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.

7. 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.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 sheet dated 23.4.2017 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 1299 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Lal & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 878 of 2016, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun and the cognizance order dated 24.7.2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

Md Faisal