Allahabad High Court
Amit Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. . And Another on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189693
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17099 of 2023
Applicant :- Amit Verma And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Ved Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of impugned charge sheet No.01 of 2021 dated 12.03.2021 and summoning order dated 17.11.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.7511 of 2022 (State Vs. Omprakash), arising out of Case Crime No.0079 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Patherwa, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar. So far as it relates to the present applicant Omprakash Verma.
3. As per FIR version, on the issue relating to pouring of water at the door step of the first informant, while he has raised objection, present applicant along with Amit Verma (co-accused) barged in the house of the first informant (opposite party No.2) and thrashed him badly, inflicting severe injuries.
4. On the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court has directed to the court concerned for verification of the compromise took place between the parties, vide order dated 26.07.2023, which is quoted herein below:-
"1.Personal affidavit filed by the Investigation Officer is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the state.
3. Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 12.03.2021, bearing charge sheet No.01 of 2021 and summoning order dated 17.11.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No.7511 of 2022 (State Versus Om Prakash), arising out of Case Crime No.0079 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 308 IPC, Police Station Patherwa, District Kushinagar, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kasya Kushinagar.
4. While entertaining the instant application, this Court has passed the order dated 16.05.2023, which is quoted herein below:-
"Learned AGA will produce the case diary, in particular, the medico legal report from the Gorakhpur Medical College, if it is included in the case diary; else the personal affidavit of the Investigating Officer shall be filed within a week, indicating what the opinion was expressed about the injuries by the doctor at the Gorakhpur Medical College and what treatment etc. was given to the injured.
Lay as fresh again on 24.05.2023."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.05.2023, Investigating Officer has filed the personal affidavit along with injury report and x-ray report. The x-ray report submitted with the endorsement that "no fracture found".
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that due to some misunderstanding scuffle took place between the parties. Now, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and and entered into compromise. Certified copy of the compromise has been filed before this Court along with the supporting affidavit of the applicants. It is further submitted that the instant matter may be allowed and criminal proceeding may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.
7. In this conspectus as above, learned trial court, before whom compromise has been filed by the parties, is hereby directed to verify the compromise inked between the parties after recording the statement of both the parties and submit a verification report before this Court within one month from the date of first appearance of both the parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on August 17th, 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has assured that his client will inform in writing to other sides apprising the date fixed before the court below and also file affidavit of service before the trial court.
8. List this matter on September 19th, 2023, along with verification report submitted by the learned trial court.
9. It is expected that on the next date fixed before this Court i.e. 19.09.2023, the respondent No.2 (first informant) shall also be appeared personally along with his counsel.
10. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in the aforesaid case against the applicants shall remain stayed. "
5. In pursuance of the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasya Kushinagar has submitted its verification report dated 06.09.2023 along with verification order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division))/Judicial Magistrate, Kasya Kushi Nagar and copy of compromise application. Perusal of the record reveals that with respect to the incident in question, Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 arraigning the present applicant Omprakash Verma and co-accused Amit Verma (juvenile). Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 17.11.2022, has taken cognizance of the case and issued summon against the present applicant namely Omprakash Verma under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 and 308 IPC.
6. Opposite party No.2 has appeared in person before this Court in pursuance of the order dated 26.07.2023, who has been identified by his counsel Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra. On the pointed query put to him by Court, in presence of learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.A., he has unequivocally stated that due to some misunderstanding between the parties, FIR has been lodged on his behalf and now he is no more interested to pursue the criminal proceedings against the present applicant as well as co-accused Amit Verma. He has further stated that he will file an application before the Juvenile Court as well intending to withdraw the case against co-accused Amit Verma. He has further stated that he entered into compromise on his own violation without any duress, therefore, criminal proceedings against the applicant, who has been summoned in pursuance of the order dated 17.11.2022, may be quashed.
7. Perusal of the verification report dated 06.09.2023 and verification order dated 17.08.2023 reveal that both the parties were present personally before the Court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsel. It has further been observed that the terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into the compromise without any duress, accordingly, the compromise has been verified.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. They are living peacefully without any grudges between them against each other. It is further submitted that in the case of Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 even cases relating to severe injuries under Section 307 IPC has been decided on the basis of compromise. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants 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 AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the 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.
12. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 06.09.2023, compromise verification order dated 17.08.2023 and 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.
13. 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 proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
Mini
