Gaurav Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 20381 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gaurav Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2024

Author: Ajit Kumar

Bench: Ajit Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100788
 
Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18644 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gaurav Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.2.

2.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 94 of 2022 dated 17.03.2022 registered as Case No. 01343 of 2022 (State Vs. Praveen Kumar Tyagi) arising out of Case Crime No. 590 of 2021 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur as well as to quash the cognizance order dated 03.06.2022 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of the present case registered as Case No.3499 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.77 of 2023 pending in the court of Fifth Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), J.M., Amroha. Before this Court both the parties agreed for reconciliation and accordingly this Court passed order disposing of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dated 02.05.2024 directing the parties to appear before the court concerned and get the compromise duly verified. Parties appeared before the Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amroha alongwith written compromise which got duly verified by the Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in its order dated 10.05.2024. Certificate of the verification of the compromise between the parties has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the application. Relief part of the verification done by the Judicial Magistrate concerned dated 10.05.2024 is reproduced hereunder:

"?? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? 02.05.24 ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ? ? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? "

Considering various earlier judgments of Supreme Court especially in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Others (2019) 5 SCC 688 Supreme Court has laid down broad principle of law for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the matter of an application filed for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings pursuant to compromise reached between the parties. Vide para 15 the Court has held thus:

?15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.?

In view of the above, since it is a case where the applicants have been charge sheeted under Section 406, 420, 504 & 506 IPC and basically relates to transaction of money for purchase of a Truck and parties have come to compromise, I do not see the offences to be one which can be termed as heinous offence having serious social impact upon the society, if the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise and therefore, the case in hand does fall exception to paras 15.2, 15.3, 15.4 and 15.5 of the aforesaid judgment.

Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in connection with charge sheet no. 94 of 2022 dated 17.03.2022 registered as Case No. 01343 of 2022 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur are hereby quashed.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 3.6.2024

Deepika