Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Chandra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190762
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6305 of 2017
Applicant :- Mukesh Chandra And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Solanki
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pathak
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 proceedings of Case No. 2424 of 2010 under Sections 418, 420 IPC, police station Kotwali Hathras, district Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras
3. Owing to some misunderstanding between the parties relating to business transaction, an FIR has been lodged on behalf of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (Opposite party No.2) against the present applicants. During pendency of the case, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Considering the request made on behalf of the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 28.02.2017, has directed to the parties to file their compromise before the trial court which shall be verified by the court concerned within a period of three months.
4. For ready reference, order dated 28.02.2017 is quoted herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 2424 of 2010 under Sections 418, 420 IPC, police station Kotwali Hathras, district Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the matter which is a private dispute has been compromised between the parties, copy of which has been filed as annexure-4.
Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Opposite party No. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
In the meantime, the applicant may file the compromise entered into between the parties, before the court below within a period of fifteen days from today who shall verify the same within three months after issuing notice to the signatories of the compromise, under intimation to this Court.
List after three months.
Till the next date of listing, coercive action against the applicants in the the aforesaid case shall be kept in abeyance. "
5. In compliance of the order dated 28.02.2017, parties inked compromise dated 19.06.2018 and filed before the court below. The said compromise was verified by the court concerned on the same date i.e. 19.06.2018. Certified copy of the order sheet dated 19.06.2018 and certified copy of the compromise application dated 19.06.2018 along with compromise verification order dated 19.06.2018, which has been endorsed on the reverse side of the first page of the compromise are collectively filed as Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2(first informant).
6. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 19.06.2018 reveals that both the parties were present personally before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and, accordingly, compromise has been verified by the court concerned. Separate order sheet dated 19.06.2018 reveals that the compromise was verified by the court concerned and next date fixed for further proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of said 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. It is further submitted that now there is no business transaction dispute exists between the parties, who have no grudges against each other. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Mini
