Zeeshan And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25723 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184544
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19153 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Zeeshan And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

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

2. None is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

4. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of impugned order dated 21.03.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.15447 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 336 I.P.C., Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra, pending before the court of learned In-charge Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on the basis of compromise

5. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.106 of 2022 with respect of the alleged incident dated 14.06.2023 wherein nephew of the first informant has been thrashed. During pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a compromise. On the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants, this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2023, has permitted the applicants to file compromise application before the court below and after getting it verified certified copy of the said verification order was ordered to be obtained and file before this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 24.07.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 15447 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2022, under sections 147, 323 and 336 I.P.C., P.S. Lohamandi, district-Agra, pending in the Court of In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, as well as impugned order dated 21.3.2023.

It has been submitted that the applicants, opposite party no. 2/informant and injured have amicably resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise outside the Court, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure- 4 to the affidavit accompanying the application. They had filed an application along with compromise deed with a prayer that the compromise may be verified and the case be decided on the basis thereof. The trial court, vide order dated 21.3.2023 has rejected the application for verification of compromise on the ground that applicants have not obtained bail from the trial court and offence under Section 336 I.P.C. is not compoundable, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the application. He further submits that he has filed the certified copy of compromise deed.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and entered into a compromise, it may be verified by the trial court.

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. For ensuring cordial relation and peace between the parties.

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

In view of above, it is provided that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 shall appear before the trial court concerned and file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall submit compromise verification report before this Court till 25.8.2023. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.

List this case as fresh before appropriate Bench on 28.8.2023 along with report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.

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

6. In pursuance of the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by this Court, both the parties have filed the compromise application supported by an affidavit. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted the verification report dated 01.09.2023 along with the compromise verification order dated 07.08.2023.

7. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 07.08.2023 reveals that both the parties (first informant and all the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsels. It has been observed that the terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to both parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and states that they voluntarily arrived at compromise without any duress. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

8. Perusal of the compromise application reveals that it bears the signature of all the parties and the photographs of all the signatories are affixed on the first page of the compromise.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 07.08.2023 filed along with the supplementary affidavit, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the entire 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 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

12. Having considered the compromise verification order dated 07.08.2023, compromise application 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 :- 21.9.2023

Jitendra