Sheetal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 19800 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153135
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22200 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sheetal And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State 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 18.3.2019 as well entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 481 of 2019 (State Vs. Vishnu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2018, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Khurza, District Bulandshahr, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Khurza, District Bulandshahr.

4. As per FIR version, present applicants along with other co-accused have taken money to the tune of Rs.10,87,000/- from the first informant on the pretext of securing job in the Armed Forces. On the request made on behalf of applicant this Court, vide order dated 16.6.2023, has relegated the parties before the trial court for verification of the compromise. For ready reference the order dated 16.6.2023 is quoted herein below :-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 18.03.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 481 of 2019 (State Vs. Vishnu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 482 of 2018, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., PS Khurza Nagar, District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Khurza, Bulandshahar on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise application has been filed by the parties concerned before the trial court.

Whether a compromise has taken place between the parties or not, can be best ascertained by the court below, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to ensure the presence of the parties concerned before the court concerned on 05.07.2023 and the trial court, thereafter, shall ascertain the genuineness of the compromise after taking the view of the parties concerned. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof, so that they may file the verification report before this Court.

Put up on 24.07.2023 as fresh alongwith compromise deed duly verified by the Court below."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.6.2023 learned C.J.M., has submitted his report dated 12.7.2023 along with verification order dated 5.7.2023 verifying the compromise dated 01.6.2023. In verification order dated 5.7.2023 it is observed that compromise took place between the first informant and two accused namely, Sheetal D/o Sri Brij Pal Singh and Azad S/o Sri Brij Pal Singh (who are applicants herein). As per the agreement, no liability left upon the present applicants relating to the financial transaction between them and, now, opposite party No.2 (first informant) is no more interested to prosecute the criminal proceeding against the present applicants. After verifying the compromise in presence of the parties learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted his verification report dated 12.7.2027 with an observation that both the parties were present and the terms of the compromise has been spelled out to them who have admitted the factum of the compromise.

6. 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 C.J.M. verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

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. 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 charge sheet dated 18.3.2019 as well entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 481 of 2019 (State Vs. Vishnu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2018, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., Police Station Khurza, District Bulandshahr, learned A.C.J.M., Khurza, District Bulandshahr is hereby quashed only against the present applicants namely, Sheetal D/o Sri Brij Pal Singh and Azad S/o Sri Brij Pal Singh.

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

Order Date :- 31.7.2023

Md Faisal