Vipin Sharma And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28275 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197684
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22475 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Vipin Sharma And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Rathore
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sangam Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned 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 cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2020, charge sheet No. 1 of 2020 dated 15.4.2020 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2983 of 2020 (State Vs. Vipin Sharma and others) arising out of the Case Crime No. 0235 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on the basis of compromise.

4. As per FIR version, the accused have barged into the house of the first informant and ransacked the house and pounded the first informant and his family members. During pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at compromise. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, having considered the compromise took place between the parties, vide order dated 27.6.2023, 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 27.6.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2983 of 2020 (State of U.P. v. Vipin Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0235 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun on the basis of compromise dated 01.06.2023.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that both the parties have buried the hatchet and pledged to live peacefully, as such, they have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure No. 5).

Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent no. 2) has admitted the factum of the compromise that took place between the parties and agree to refer the matter before the Trial Court for verification of the compromise.

In this conspectus as above, both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 07.07.2023 along with the original copy of the compromise. After the compromise application being filed, the Trial Court is directed to verify the compromise in presence of both the parties and submit its verification report within one month from the date of the first appearance of the parties i.e. 07.07.2023.

List this matter on 16.08.2023 along with the verification report of the Court concerned.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 2983 of 2020 (State of U.P. v. Vipin Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0235 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. , Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. "

5. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai has submitted a verification report dated 15.9.2023 along with copy of the compromise application as well as compromise verification order dated 14.7.2023. Certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 14.7.2023 has been filed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

6. A perusal of the verification report and the compromise verification order dated 14.7.2023 reveals that both the parties (first informant and all the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Parties have stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any coercion and duress and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report 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.

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. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the 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 compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 15.9.2023, compromise verification order dated 14.7.2022 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.

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 :- 12.10.2023

vinay