Sadan And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 29111 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202129
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10158 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sadan And 6 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Lihazur Rahman Khan,Araf Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Tiwari
 

 
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 10.05.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 22.12.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.586 of 2020, arising out of Criminal Case No.23312 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 384 IPC, Police Station Civil Line, District Aligarh.

4. Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR levelling allegation of rioting, extortion, and thrashing against the present applicants. 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 27.03.2023 has issued a direction for verification of compromise.

5. For ready reference, order dated 27.03.2023 is quoted herein below:-

"Heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, Sri U.P. Singh, learned State counsel and perused the record.

The present application has been filed by the applicants- Sadan, Zaid Sherewani, Azad Mandla, Sohail Musarrat, Aamir Chowdhary, Shahji alias Shaiji & Haseeb Khan with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case Crime No. 586 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 384 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Line, District Aligarh, on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 outside the court about which a compromise deed has been prepared on 04.03.2023 and with further prayer that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application before this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 04.03.2023, copy of the said compromise is annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.

Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.

List on 28.04.2023.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

6. Due to some official constrained, copy of the compromise application could not be transmitted to the trial court, therefore, this Court has passed subsequent order dated 10.05.2023, which is quoted herein below:-

"1. Ms. Sonakshi Arora, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise in original has been filed before this Court annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same could not be filed before the concerned Court in compliance of the order dated 27.3.2023 of this Court and as such, the same be directed to be given to the applicants for being produced before the Court concerned.

3. The prayer is allowed.

4. Office to do needful as per rules.

5. The time as granted for verification of the compromise in the previous order is extended for further period of three weeks.

6. Let the matter be listed on 6.7.2023.

7. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing."

7. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted its report dated 04.07.2023 along with previous report dated 16.06.2023 and compromise verification order dated 05.06.2023. Copy of compromise application is also appended with the report.

8. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 05.06.2023 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.

9. Certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 05.06.2023 has been filed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants.

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

Order Date :- 18.10.2023

Mini