Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 6977 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4669 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Husain,Aushim Luthra,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Short counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

Heard Mr. Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.09.2021 and summoning order dated 01.10.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 157 of 2021 (State Vs. Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya), arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 376, 377, 386, 392, 420, 427, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/5 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District-Agra.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of order dated 21.02.2023, the opposite party no.2 has deposited the compensation amount, received by her in Government Exchequer, copy of repayment slip to the Government Exchequer and application have been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

Today, the applicant, namely, Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya and opposite party no.2, namely, Vandana Prasad Bharti are present in the Court today, who have been identified and their signatures have also been attested by their counsel. The opposite party no.2-Vandana Prasad Bharti has stated that does not have any grudge against the applicant and he does not want to proceed with the case. She has further stated that she has entered into compromise and deposed before this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. She has also stated that she will not file any case against the applicant in future. The applicant-Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya has stated that he does not have any grudge against the opposite party no.2 and he does not want to proceed with the case. He has also stated that the dispute between the two has been resolved amicably and he will not file any case against the opposite party no.2 in future.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court in the case of Kapal Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another decided on 10.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5806 of 2022.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows:-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

The Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.

In the present case, no doubt offence under the relevant sections 323, 307, 376, 377, 386, 392, 420, 427, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/5 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's, Narinder Singh's, Parbatbhai Aahir's and Laxmi Narayan's cases (supra), power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, if warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.

In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Apex Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view of nature of this case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a commonsense approach, based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that the victim/opposite party no.3, herself, has stated before this Court that the opposite party no.2 has entered into compromise and deposed before this Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 28.09.2021 and summoning order dated 01.10.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 157 of 2021 (State Vs. Arif Hashmi @ Aditya Arya), arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 376, 377, 386, 392, 420, 427, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/5 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 are hereby quashed.

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

Order Date :- 3.3.2023

Jitendra/-