Allahabad High Court
Taslim Khan And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Johari
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9799
Court No. - 32
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 921 of 2024
Applicant :- Taslim Khan And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad Nigam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, who has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record, and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 11.01.2023 as well as for quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 30.09.2022 and entire criminal proceedings in Case No.1255 of 2023, which arose out of the Case Crime/F.I.R. No.255/2022, for the offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Manjhila, District - Hardoi, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Hardoi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party No.2 had given some money to the applicants and due to some accounting difference a dispute arose between the applicants and opposite party No.2. Consequently, F.I.R. under Case Crime No.255/2022, for the offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Manjhila, District - Hardoi was lodged by opposite party No.2 against the applicants with false and exaggerated contentions and after investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in a mechanical manner, without any cogent evidence. Hence, the applicants had preferred application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing A-482 Cr.P.C. No.11705/2023, challenging the charge sheet dated 23.09.2022. However, in due course of time, both the parties have resolved their dispute by way of compromise outside the court. Accordingly, some money which was deficit has been paid to the opposite party No.2. The dispute was purely private in nature as the applicants have no criminal history. On the request of the parties, the deed of compromise was referred to the trial court for its verification.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the parties had appeared before the trial court and the deed of compromise has been verified by the trial court on 19.12.2023, a certified copy of the compromise deed as well as the order of verification has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the application. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that taking into consideration the terms of the compromise, the proceedings which have arisen out of Case Crime/F.I.R. No.255/2022, for the offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Manjhila, District - Hardoi may be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also conceded that the matter between the applicants and opposite party No.2 has been amicably settled and parties have no further grievance with each other. If, the relief as prayed by the applicants is granted in favour of applicants, he has no objection. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the aforesaid facts.
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."
11. 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 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."
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 proceedings 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.
16. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings arising out of Case Crime/F.I.R. No.255/2022, for the offence under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Manjhila, District - Hardoi, including the charge-sheet dated 30.09.2022, and entire criminal proceedings in Case No.1255 of 2023 (State Vs. Taslim Khan and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Hardoi, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
ML/-
