Allahabad High Court
Aftab Alam And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191940
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4646 of 2022
Applicant :- Aftab Alam And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Laloriya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. None is present for the private opposite party No.3( first informant).
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet dated 01.11.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 114 of 2020 (State Vs. Aftab Alam and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2020, U/s 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Collector Book Ganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III Bareilly.
4. Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Considering the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 06.07.2022, has directed the learned trial court to verify the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. For ready reference, order dated 06.07.2022 is quoted herein below:-
"Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 114 of 2020 (State Vs. Aftab Alam and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2020 U/s 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Collector Book Ganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III Bareilly.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that both parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter and that they have already filed the compromise before the Court below, thus, impugned proceedings be quashed on the basis of said compromise.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to ensure the presence of parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
List this case in the week commencing 22.8.2022 as fresh.
Till the next date, further proceedings of aforesaid Case Crime shall be kept in abeyance."
6. In pursuance of the order dated 06.07.2022, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly has submitted verification report dated 27.07.2023 along with copy of the compromise, statements of the first informant and her husband (accused No.1) and compromise verification order dated 27.07.2023 passed by court concerned. Perusal of the compromise verification report reveals that both the parties were present personally before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Along with the report, learned court concerned has appended the statement of Nazish (opposite party No.3), who has stated, being c.w.-1 that she is not interested to prosecute the criminal proceedings against the present applicants inasmuch as both the parties were arrived at compromise. Statement of Aftab Alam (applicant no.1), husband, being c.w.-2 is also appended with the report, who has nodded the factum of compromise took place between the parties. In compromise verification order dated 27.07.2023 it has been observed that both the parties have arrived at compromise without any duress.
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 buried the hatchet and living peacefully. There is no grudges between them 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. 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.
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 :- 5.10.2023
Mini
