Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Shankar Mathur ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:71296
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10648 of 2023
Applicant :- Abhishek Shankar Mathur According To Prosecution Actual Name Abhishek Shankar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), U.P. Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha,Mohammad Zeeshan Lari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Roshan Kumar Khatri, who has filed power on behalf of O.P. No.2, Sri Aniruddh Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of impugned chargesheet No.1/2023 dated 27.3.2023, case crime No./FIR No.208 of 2022 under Section 307, 323, 506, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Hussainganj, district Lucknow contained in Annexure No.3 to the application, the cognizance order dated 14.7.2023 passed by CJM-I, Lucknow against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
3. A compromise deed was entered into between the parties on 30.9.2023, which was verified by the concerned court below i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, vide order dated 13.10.2023. contained in Annexure No.7 to the application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case are quashed.
6. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]
7. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
8. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others Vs. State of Gujarat And Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;
16.2. 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.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;
16.4. 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;
16.5. 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;
16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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;
16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. 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;
16.9. 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
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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. It is also relevant to mention the case of State of Madhya Pradesh. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5 while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused."
10. Considering the fact that the compromise between the parties has been entered into which is on record, both the parties being present here, counsel for the opposite party being present having no objection to this compromise as well as looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.
11. Accordingly, the proceedings of impugned chargesheet No.1/2023 dated 27.3.2023, case crime No./FIR No.208 of 2022 under Section 307, 323, 506, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Hussainganj, district Lucknow contained in Annexure No.3 to the application, the cognizance order dated 14.7.2023 passed by CJM-I, Lucknow against the applicants in the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed.
12. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.10.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
