Manoj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 26923 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191140
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9485 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
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 charge sheet dated 18.09.2021 along with cognizance order dated 01.11.2021 passed by A.C.J.M. VIIth Aligarh as well as proceeding of Case No.1545 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj Chaudhari & others), under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Aligarh on the basis of compromise.

3. The instant matter is arising out of business transaction. During pendency of the case, both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has passed the order dated 22.03.2023 directing the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 22.03.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 18.9.2021, cognizance order dated 01.11.2021 and the proceedings of Case No. 1545 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No. 1, Aligarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

4. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

5. List on 05.7.2023.

6. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by this Court, A.C.J.M., Court No.1, Aligarh has submitted his verification report dated 17.05.2023 along with the copy of the compromise and the compromise verification order dated 17.05.2023.

5. Perusal of an F.I.R., Case Crime No.0265/2021 dated 15.04.2021, reveals that total six persons are inculpated in occurrence of alleged crime. Out of them three applicants namely Manoj Kumar, Ankit Kumar and Shahid Khan have preferred the instant application assailing the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceeding.

6. Perusal of the compromise application dated 10.01.2023 reveals that photographs of the first informant namely Smt. Rashmi Mittal (opposite party no.2) and photographs of all six accused as mentioned in the F.I.R. are affixed on the third page of the compromise. First informant as well as all six accused persons have put their signatures on the compromise.

7. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 17.05.2023 and the report dated 17.05.2023 reveals that both the parties have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and , accordingly, compromise has been verified.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants, in the above eventuality of the compromise arrived at between the parties and verification of the said compromise by the court competent, has submitted that all the financial dispute arose between the parties have been settled down and there is no grudged between them against each other, therefore, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants (accused) may be quashed. It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the compromise have been fulfilled. To quash the charge sheet as well as entire 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 order dated 17.05.2023, 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.

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, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 4.10.2023

Jitendra