Manoj And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 26725 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190185
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 234 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Kalyan Sundram Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bratendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceeding of Case No.2185 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar Vs. Pardhan Singh and others), under Sections 323, 506, 427 I.P.c. & U/s 3(1) (Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad on the basis of compromise.

3. Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad has issued process against the present applicants vide order impugned dated 11.07.2022 on the complaint dated 01.10.2021 moved on behalf of Pankaj Kumar (opposite party no.2). During pendency of the case, both the parties have entered into compromise and, accordingly, court concerned was directed to verify the compromise. This Court has also issued a direction to submit a report as to whether any compensation has been given to the opposite party no.2 in pursuance of Rule 18 of SC/ST Rules, 1995 or not. For ready reference, the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Sri Bratendra Singh filed his vakalatnama and short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Case No. 2185 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar vs. Pardhan Singh and others) under Sections 323, 506, 427 IPC & under Section 3(1) (da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad.

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that parties have come to terms and bury their differences and dispute and entered into a compromise, the compromise deed dated 06.12.2022 is annexed as Annexure-3 to the application the court has also verified the said compromise deed which is signed by both the parties.

Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Ram Avatar vs. State of M.P. and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011 decided on 25.10.2021 reported in AIR 2021 SC 522. The Court is ready to expunge the proceeding.

(i) The Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Firozabad is required to inquire from concern Samaj Kalyan Adhikari or any other relevant officer as to the amount of compensation received by opposite party no. 2 in the light of Rule 18 of SC/ST Rules, 1995 (if any amount is being given by way of compensation) by the State Government it is mandatory and incumbent upon the opposite party no. 2 to make good those payments within next 15 days to the treasury of the government/Samja Kalyan Adhikari, Firozabad, otherwise this compromise would have no effect in the eye of law.

(i) After ensuring that the amount has been returned back in the government treasury by the opposite party no. 2 the Special Judge SC/ST Act shall summon both the parties to to verify the covenants and signatories of the said compromise and pass suitable order after verifying the said compromise. This exercise has been concluded by the learned Special Judge SC/ST within next 20 days from today.

Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants is at liberty to move a supplementary affidavit and annexing the orders passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Case No. 2185 of 2021 (Pankaj Kumar vs. Pardhan Singh and others) under Sections 323, 506, 427 IPC & under Section 3(1) (da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

Put up this case as fresh on 08.02.2023."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court, District Social Welfare Officer, Firozabad has submitted his report dated 04.02.2023 with an observation that no financial assistance has been extended to the victim from his office inasmuch as no such request letter/proposal has been sent from the office of Superintendent of Police, Firozabad.

5. Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad has submitted his verification report dated 14.02.2023, in compliance of the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by this Court, with an observation that both the parties have appeared before the court and filed the compromise application (Paper No.20-B/1) supported by affidavit (Paper No.20-B/2). Both the parties were identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified. Along with the verification report, copy of the compromise application (Paper No.20-B/1) and the affidavit are appended. On the first page of the compromise photographs of all the accused and complainant are affixed. Learned Trial Court, on the rear side of the first page of compromise application, has passed the compromise verification order dated 13.02.2023 with an observation that both the parties were identified by their respective counsels, as such, the compromise has been verified.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the verification of the compromise by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise on their own volition and buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, who are living peacefully. To quash the entire 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.

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 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.

9. 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.

10. Having considered the compromise verification order dated 14.02.2023, compromise application 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.

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 entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 3.10.2023

Jitendra