Sandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27408 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193159
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22299 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sandeep Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- 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 applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

3. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 10.2.2021, charge sheet dated 25.5.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 12086 of 2019 (State Vs. Sandeep and others) arising out of the Case Crime No. 0101 of 2019, under Sections 147, 353, 323, 427, 506, 504 and 332 IPC and Section 7 of Crimial Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh pending before court concerned on the basis of compromise.

4. Opposite Party No. 2 has lodged an FIR with an averment that on the date of occurrence, the accused, as mentioned in the FIR, has thrashed him inflicting severe injuries. During pendency of the case, the present applicant (one of the accused) and opposite party No. 2 (first informant) have settled their dispute amicably out of the court and entered into a compromise. This Court, on the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant, has directed the court below for verification of the compromise. For ready reference, the order dated 9.11.2021 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chetan Chatterji, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 25.5.2019, under sections 147, 353, 323, 427, 506, 504, 332 IPC and section 7 Crl. Amendment Act, in Case No. 12088 of 2019 arising out of case crime No. 101 of 2019, Police Station- Sidhari, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of C.J.M. Azamgarh.

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

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the dispute.

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.

List after two months.

Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 9.11.2021 passed by this Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh has submitted his verification report dated 15.2.2022 along with verification order dated 14.2.2022 and the compromise application.

6. A perusal of the compromise application dated 14.2.2023 appended with the verification report dated 15.2.2022 reveals that on the second page of the compromise, photographs of the present applicant, opposite party No. 2 (first informant) and two witnesses are affixed, who have put their signatures over there and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsel. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 14.2.2023 reveals both the parties (applicant Sandeep Singh and opposite party No. 2, Ajay Kumar) have appeared before the court concerned personally and filed their compromise, and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the compromise verification report dated 15.2.2022, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has reiterated the observation as made by the court concerned in its verification order dated 14.2.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the verification of the said compromise by the court competent, submits that the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and arrived at a compromise on their own volition without any duress or coercion and now there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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 dated 15.2.2022, compromise verification order dated 14.2.2022 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 so far as it relates to the present applicant namely Sandeep Singh only.

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

Order Date :- 6.10.2023

vinay