Rama And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28726 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200182
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4658 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rama And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra,Alok Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. None is present for the opposite party No.2.

3. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed beseeching quashing of charge sheet dated 18.04.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Session Trial No.43 of 2021 (State Vs. Rama & another), arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452, 427, 307 IPC, Police Station Rendhar, District Jalaun on the basis compromise.

4. Opposite Party No. 2 has lodged an FIR showing the date of occurrence dated 09/10.03.2016. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 19.05.2022, has relegated the parties before the court below for verification of compromise.

5. For ready reference, order dated 19.05.2022 is quoted herein below:-

"Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed following reliefs:-

"to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 18.4.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 44 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452, 427, 307 I.P.C. Police Station- Rendhar, District- Jalaun"

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 have decided to settle their dispute with mutual understanding. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the compromise has been annexed as Annexure- no. 6 to the petition.

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on 27.5.2022 and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the court below may verify the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send verification report to this Court before the next date of listing of the case.

List this case in the week commencing 4.7.2022 along with verification report.

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

6. In pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by this Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun has submitted verification report dated 31.05.2022 along with compromise verification order dated 27.05.2022 and copy of compromise application dated 20.01.2022.

7. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 27.05.2022 and compromise verification report dated 31.05.2022 reveals that both the parties were present personally before the court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the compromise was spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of the compromise and, accordingly, compromise has been verified.

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. 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. Having considered the verification report submitted by the learned trial court appended with the verification order coupled with other documents 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 proceedings would case 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 and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 16.10.2023

Mini