Ajeet Singh vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 27400 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193288
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1448 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Ajeet Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Ms Alka Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. List revised. None is present on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.159 of 2017 (State Vs. Ajeet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2016, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Ist/ Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat on the basis of compromise.

4. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an FIR, being Case Crime No.0255 of 2016 dated 27.08.2016, against the present applicants with an allegation that they badly thrashed to the first informant and abused him. As time passes by, both the parties were arrived at compromise and settled their dispute out of Court. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 01.02.2018, has issued a direction to the court below for verification of the compromise. For ready reference, the order dated 01.02.2018 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Crl. Case no. 159 of 2017 (State vs. Ajeet Singh and Others) arising out of case crime no. 255 of 2016, u/s 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat, pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)-I, / Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. It is contended that the applicant no. 1 is brother-in-law of daughter of opposite party no.2 and applicant no. 2 is father-in-law. It is stated that both side have settled their dispute amicably and in this behalf compromise has been filed in the court below. Certified copy of the same has been annexed as annexure no. 4, which bears signature of both side.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court concerned is directed to verify the compromise dated 31.8.2017 and submit its report within six weeks from today.

List this case on 19.3.2018."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Ist/ Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat has submitted his verification report dated 05.05.2018 along with the copy of the compromise 31.08.2017.

6. Perusal of the compromise application reveals that on the reverse side of the first page of the compromise, photograph of the first informant and both the accused (applicants) are affixed. Next to their photographs, their statements, made before the court below, are mentioned wherein they have admitted the factum of compromise took place between the parties and stated that they have entered into the compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion.

7. Perusal of verification report dated 05.05.2018 reveals that both the parties have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsels. All the parties have filed their respective identity proof and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 05.05.2018, the 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 buried the hatchet and 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.

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. Having considered the compromise verification report 05.05.2018 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 :- 6.10.2023

Jitendra