Allahabad High Court
Dr. Ram Milan vs Dr. Keshav Kumar Professor And ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194733
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41140 of 2013
Applicant :- Dr. Ram Milan
Opposite Party :- Dr. Keshav Kumar Professor And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gagan Mehta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
In Ref:- (Order on Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2023 and Restoration Application No.3 of 2023)
1. Instant restoration application along with the delay condonation application has been moved on behalf of the present applicant to recall the order dated 12.11.2021 and restore to original application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to its original number.
2. Record reveals that the restoration application has been filed on 11.5.2023 against the order dated 12.11.2021 dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as infructuous with liberty to the applicant to move appropriate application seeking recall of the order, in case matter still survives.
3. Having considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant and the contents as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application it is manifested that the instant matter still survives and required to be heard on merits. It is further submitted that dispute between the parties have already been settled amicably, therefore, the same may be restored and decided on the basis of settlements dated 06.09.2019 took place before the Mediation Centre of this Court.
4. No counter affidavit has been filed to the aforesaid application. Learned AGA has not disputed the factum of settlement dated 06.09.2019 took place between the parties.
5. Cause shown for the delay in filing the instant application are appears to be satisfactory. As such, delay condonation application as well as restoration application are allowed and the original application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby restored to its original number.
(Order on Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed beseeching quashing of the complaint dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure No. 2) along with summoning order dated 03.09.2013 as well as proceedings in Criminal Case No. 111 of 2010 (Dr. Keshav Kumar Vs. Ram Milan), under Section 500 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad.
3. Opposite Party No. 1 has moved a complaint against the present applicant. Learned Magistrate, after considering the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 had issued process against the present applicant under Section 500 IPC.
4. It is submitted that vide order dated 27.5.2019 passed by this Court in connected matter being application under Section 482 CrPC No. 34782 of 2017, the matter has been referred to the mediation centre wherein both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked settlement agreement dated 6.9.2019. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement dated 6.9.2019, all the disputes which are pending before this Court have been resolved finally. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the Clause 7 (a)(vii) of the settlement agreement dated 6.9.2019, wherein in a reference of the instant application is also given, the instant application may be decided finally and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that the both the parties have buried hatchet and having no grudges against each other between them. 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.
5. 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."
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 has nodded the factum of 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 both the parties have resolved all the disputes pending between them, through settlement agreement dated 6.9.2019. They have voluntarily entered into settlement agreement dated 6.9.2019 and Opposite Party No. 1 does not want to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
7. 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.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise dated 6.9.2019 arrived at between the parties before mediation centre of this Hon'ble High Court, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023/Md Faisal
