Naseem And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 30130 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208142
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10524 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Naseem And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Singh,J.B. Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of S.T. No.814 of 2009 (State vs. Naseem and others), arising out of Case Crime No.151 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 308, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court (1), District Muzaffarnagar on the basis of compromise.

4. It is submitted that owing to misunderstanding, scuffle took place between the parties, which led lodging of an N.C.R. by private opposite party no.2 against the present applicants.

5. During the pendency of the trial, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed order dated 27.09.2022 in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.27875 of 2022 (Naseeem and three others vs. state of U.P. and another) issuing a direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise and liberty was granted to the present applicants to approach before this Court to decide the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise verified. For ready reference order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court by way of entering into compromise which is on record as Annexure No. 3 to the petition. It is further submitted that since the dispute has been settled outside the Court by the parties, the compromise may be directed to be verified by the trial court so that later on on the basis of such verification report the proceedings impugned may be quashed.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 concedes the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

In view of the above the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 19.10.2022 along with the copy of original compromise deed, who shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties.

For a period of two month, S.T. No. 814 of 2009 (State Vs. Naseem and others) arising cut of case crime No. 151 of 2009 under section 323, 504,506 324,308,452 IPC Police Station Purkaji District Muzaffarnagar pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.(1) District Muzaffarnagar shall be kept in abeyance.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification.

Office is directed to return the original compromise to learned counsel for the petitioners as per Rules of the Court."

6. In pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by this Court, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, has verified the compromise vide order dated 19.10.2022. Certified copy of the order dated 19.10.2022 has been filed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application.

7. Perusal of order dated 19.10.2022 reveals that parties have filed miscellaneous application (Paper No.153-Ka) along with the copy of the compromise (Paper No.154-Ka) in pursuance of the order passed by this court. Both the parties were present before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the eventuality of the amicable settlement took place between the parties and the verification of the compromise vide order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed.

9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, who are living peacefully. It is further submitted that to observe the peace and tranquility in the life of both the parties, instant matter is required to be decided finally in the light of the settlement. 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.

10. 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."

11. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise application and compromise verification order dated 19.10.2022 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

12. 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 application and compromise verification order dated 19.10.2022 took place between 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.

13. Having considered the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 19.10.2022 took place between the parties 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.

14. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 19.10.2022 arrived at between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 31.10.2023

Jitendra