Anuj And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 26728 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189691
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34014 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Anuj And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1.Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

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

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of impugned charge sheet dated 18.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.9319 of 2022 (State Vs. Anuj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 308/34 IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur on the basis of compromise.

4. Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR, being Case Crime No.0265 of 2022 dated 07.06.2022, with an averment that on the date of incident i.e. 06.06.2022 all the accused came at doorstep of the first informant and on the pretext of theft of mobile they abused and thrashed to the first informant and his family members resulted into inflicting injuries.

5. Previously, present applicants have moved an application under Section 482 No. 6240 of 2023 assailing the criminal proceedings, charge sheet and the summoning order. However, same was finally decided, vide order dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure No.3), directing to the parties to appear before the Court and get their compromise verified.

6. For ready reference, order dated 28.04.2023 is quoted herein below:-

"Heard Ms. Pallavi Rani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings including charge sheet dated 18.07.2022 in Case No. 9319 of 2022 (State Vs. Anuj and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 308/34 of IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in view of compromise dated 06.10.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them. He further submits that parties also do not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicant may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

For the period of two months or till the verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

7. In pursuance of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court, learned trial court has verified the compromise filed by the parties, vide order dated 29.05.2023. Certified copy of the compromise, verification order dated 29.05.2023 endorsed on the reverse side of the first page of the compromise, and order sheet dated 29.05.2023 are collectively filed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. Perusal of the Annexure No.4 reveals that both the parties have filed the compromise dated 06.10.2022. On the reverse side of the first page of aforesaid compromise, learned court concerned has verified the compromise by verification order dated 29.05.2023 with an observation that the first informant and all the four accused are present in persons, who 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. Order sheet dated 29.05.2023 reveals that compromise took place between the parties has been verified in presence of the parties and next date fixed i.e. 30.05.2023 for further proceedings.

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, compromise verification order 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