Prateek Mishra @ Happy Mishra And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2782 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Prateek Mishra @ Happy Mishra And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 February, 2024

Author: Narendra Kumar Johari

Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9434
 
Court No. - 32
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 889 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Prateek Mishra @ Happy Mishra And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Pandey,Abhay Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants/petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed following reliefs:-

"to pass an order or direction for quashing of summoning order dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Case No.19659 of 2019, (State v. Prateek Mishra @ Happy Mishra and others) including the Charge Sheet No. 01/2018 dated 12.10.2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Lucknow and further to stay the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the summoning order dated 10.04.2019.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners/applicants has submitted that petitioners and opposite party no. 2 are known to each other. Now, they have friendly relationship. On account of some altercations F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioners and thus, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The Investigating Officer of the present case has submitted charge sheet against the petitioners without any proper and cogent evidence in a mechanical manner. Hence, the applicants challenged the same charge sheet as well as criminal proceedings by filing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. - 11626 of 2023.

4. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, a good sense prevailed between the parties and from the mediation of some respectable persons of the society, a compromise had been entered into between the parties. The dispute between the parties has been resolved and both the parties are residing peacefully and cordial relationship has been developed between the parties. Accordingly, the parties has submitted compromise in the Court, therefore, considering the fact of compromise the Court had passed the order dated 29.11.2023 to verify the deed of compromise by trial court concerned. Now, the trial court has verified the compromise and certified copy of the compromise as well as verification order of court dated 20.12.2023 has been filed by the applicants/petitioners as Annexure No. 5 and 6 with this petition.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid are quashed.

6. Since, both the parties 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.

7. 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."

8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has given another judgement in the case of Dinesh Sharma and Ors.Vs. State of U.P and Ors. [2017 (Suppl.) ADJ 613] on the same point.

9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Ors. [2013 (4) ADJ 40] the Apex Court considering the previous judgments of the Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceedings can be quashed by this court under its inherent power on the basis of mutual settlement.

10. 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. CBIMANU/SC/7957/2008 : 2008 (9) SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S.Joshi (supra), 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. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (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 Section482 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."

11. 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.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (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.

13. 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.

14. In view of above, considering the submission of learned counsels of both the contesting parties and observations of Apex Court as well as of this Court, in the opinion of the Court, the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies is very precious, which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chances of conviction is bleak.

15. Accordingly, the the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and therefore, the Charge Sheet No. 01/2018 dated 12.10.2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Aliganj, District-Lucknow and summoning order dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Case No.19659 of 2019, (State v. Prateek Mishra @ Happy Mishra and others) are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 /Anuj Singh