Allahabad High Court
Arif Khan And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200227
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13266 of 2017
Applicant :- Arif Khan And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Sabauddin Ansari,Qamrul Hasan
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as 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 20.10.2016, cognizance order dated 25.01.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.867 of 2017 (State Vs. Arif Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
4. Instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the case, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably. Having considered the amicable settlement, this Court, vide order dated 01.11.2022 has issued a direction for verification of compromise.
5. For ready reference, order dated 01.11.2022 is quoted herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the charge sheet dated 20.10.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 25.01.2017 and the entire proceeding in Case No.867 of 2017, State Vs. Arif Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Auraiya, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that both the parties filed compromise deed (annexure no.SA-1) to the affidavit filed in support of this application as understanding has reached between the parties to settle their dispute amicably. The claim so raised is sustained. The present compromise deed is required to be verified physically by the trial court.
In view of above, it is directed that both the parties shall appear on 15.11.2022 before the court concerned and shall present the compromise deed before it. In the event on 15.11.2022, verification process cannot be drawn and is incomplete because of unforeseen circumstances / paucity of time of the court, then the date of next working will be fixed for its verification. In case, any compromise deed is so presented then physical verification of the parties shall be done and the order shall be passed by the court concerned thereon. In case any order is passed by the court concerned, the certified copy of the same shall be placed on record by way of filing affidavit by the present applicants.
List this case on 24.11.2022 in the additional cause list.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
6. In pursuance of the order dated 01.11.20122 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge/F.T.C./C.A.W., Auraiya, has verified the compromise vide verification order dated 15.11.2022. Copy of the verification order dated 15.11.2022 has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants as Annexure No.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.
7. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 15.11.2022 reveals that both the parties were present personally before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The contents of compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of said compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. It is further submitted that now there is no dispute exists between the parties and they have 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. 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 applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
12. Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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.
13. 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.
14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 16.10.2023
Mini
