Allahabad High Court
Smt. Deepa Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9671-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6276 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Deepa Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Manpreet Singh,Rahul Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents are present.
3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers :
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 29.07.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0711 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in impugned First Information Report dated 29.07.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0711 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur."
4. Learned counsel for the private respondents has pointed out the Mediation Centre'sreport dated 30.11.2023. He says that settlement has been arrived at between the parties.
5. We have perused the Mediation Centre's report and the settlement agreement enclosed along with it. Agreement has been arrived at between the parties. The main accused, Smt. Deepa Singh w/o late Jai Prakash Singh has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs) towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Chandramani Dubey S/o Shobhnath Dubey with regard to dispute relating to the booking of plot in Gata No.219 situated at Village Mariyampur, Pargana Barausha, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. A Demand Draft bearing no.361842 dated 21.08.2023, drawn on Bank of Baroda has been deposited in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
6. The petitioner, Smt. Deepa Singh has agreed to file a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.10.2022. The informant has consented to appear along with his wife, Smt. Rashmila Doobey and co-operate in cancellation of the sale deed. The informant has also agreed that he would not have any objection if this Court decides the instant petition.
7. Since the matter relates to commercial dispute on a minor issue, therefore, parties have decided to settle their dispute by way of a settlement agreement. Accordingly, a settlement agreement has been executed between the parties on 30.11.2023, which has been annexed as Annexure No.D to the writ petition.
8. According to the terms & conditions of settlement agreement, both the parties have withdrawn all the cases and complaints filed by them against each other.
9. Both the parties to the commercial dispute have arrived at a compromise. In such a situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice.
10. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had occasioned to discuss the power of the Court in the case of Nazmul Hasan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2018 (7) ADJ 245] in which it has held in paras 15 which read as under :
"15. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on 7.5.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No. 3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No. 3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise."
11. The Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and another [2011 CJ (SC) 239] has scrutinized the legal position in case of compromise in criminal cases in which the dispute was private in nature and continuation of proceeding will be sheer abuse of process of law and in this context the technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceeding. Although the power should be used by the court sparingly. It has been held by Apex Court by referring the previous judgments that :
"11. That brings to the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot' case (supra) whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 IPC despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under Section 406 was not compoundable the settlement between the parties could not be recognized nor the pending proceedings quashed. This Court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words:
"6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are,cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali,Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed."
12. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, 2008 (9) SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 4 SCC 675, this Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 420,467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.We may also at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma v.State and Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 1. This Court observed:
"8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first formation report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter.
9. As we have indicated herein before, the exercise of power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility."
13. In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 CJ (SC) 1114] the Apex Court has discussed the scope of compromise where the disputes are private in nature and quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of mutual compromise.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 1 has held that the High Court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise the power to quash the first information report where the dispute is private in nature. The High Court should take a pragmatic view in the matter.
15. Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (2008) 16 SCC 1 was doubted by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118; the larger Bench of three judges in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 observed in Para 58 and 61 of its judgment as follows :-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 555 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4579 of 2006) decided on 26.3.2008) also has discussed that the dispute is purely personal in nature and arose out of extensive business dealing and where there is no public policy involved, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise.
17. Since, the parties of the case have amicably settled their disputes which arose due to land dispute in such a situation, it will be futile to engage him in further litigation. After getting relief from legal proceedings the parties may live their life peacefully. In present scenario, the chance of ultimate conviction is also bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceeding against the petitioner. It may be sheer wastage of valuable time to Court also.
18. Since the Demand Draft dated 21.08.2023 has been deposited in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, subject to the final decision in the writ petition, this writ petition stands allowed by us for the reasons as mentioned hereinabove and the proceedings of impugned First Information Report bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.0711 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, are hereby quashed.
19. The mediation centre of this Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacks) in favour of the informant, Chandramani Dubey S/o Shobhnath Dubey, r/o Village Damodra, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur on an appropriate application being made in this regard by the counsel appearing for him, Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
Mahesh
