Allahabad High Court
Lal Bahadur Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194402
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18536 of 2023
Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Vajpeyi,Padmaker Pandey
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 charge sheet dated 13.7.2013 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.2680 of 2013 arising out of the Case Crime No.147 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar and non-bailable warrant dated 19.9.2022, pending in the court of learned A.C.M.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of compromise.
4. Opposite Party No. 3 has lodged an FIR with respect to the occurrence of crime allegedly took place on 13.5.2013. During pendency of proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at compromise. On the request made on behalf of both the parties, this Court, vide order dated 25.8.2023, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise allegedly took place between the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 25.8.2023 is quoted herein below:-
"1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, 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 Non-bailable warrant order dated 19.9.2022 and charge sheet dated 13.7.2013 in Case No. 2680 of 2013 arising out of the Case Crime No. 147 of 2013, under Sections 420,467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah.
4. It has been submitted that the both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court and buried the hatchet, therefore, instant application may be allowed and the court proceeding may be quashed. Both the parties have inked the compromise on 2.5.2023 and filed the same before the trial court. Copy of the compromise dated 2.5.2023 is annexed as annexure No. 9 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application.
5. Opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise took place between the parties and urged to decide the matter on the basis thereof finally. It is further contended that now there is no grudges between the parties and, therefore, to observe peace and tranquility, the present application may be allowed.
6. In this conspectus, as above, learned court below before whom the aforementioned compromise dated 2.5.2023 has been filed is hereby directed to verify the compromise in the presence of both the parties and also take the statement of the parties and, thereafter, submit a verification report within a period of one month from the date of first appearance of the parties, who are hereby directed to appear before the trial court concerned on 6.9.2023.
7. List this matter on 9.10.2023 along with the verification report, if any, submitted by the learned trial court concerned.
8. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in the aforementioned case shall remain stayed."
5. In pursuance of the order dated 25.8.2023, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar, has submitted the verification report dated 28.9.2023 along with the compomise verification order dated 28.9.2023. A perusal of the verification report dated 28.9.2023 and the compromise verification order dated 28.9.2023 reveals that both the parties have affixed their photographs on the first page of compromise and put their signatures. It is also revealed that both the parties have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of compromise. In verification report dated 28.9.2023, learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) has acknowledged the compromise took place between the parties and its verification by the court competent.
6. 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 28.9.2023, 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 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.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 28.9.2023, compromise verification order dated 28.9.2023 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.
10. 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.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023
LN Tripathi
