Sani Agrawal vs State Of U.P.And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6159 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sani Agrawal vs State Of U.P.And Another on 1 March, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:37949
 
Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2832 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Sani Agrawal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Najakat Ali
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Ambrish Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. K.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Nazakat Ali, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-3, Agra in Complaint Case No. 6903275 of 2018 (Smt. Bharti Gidwani @ Bharti Devi Vs. Sanni Agrawal), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Nai Ki Mandi, District-Agra as well as the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2022, whereby aforementioned appeal filed by revisionist against order dated 27.07.2022 has been dismissed.

4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that though revisionist is a convicted accused, however, irrespective of above, the parties have entered into a settlement during the pendency of present criminal revision. The entire amount due to opposite party 2 now stands satisfied. Since the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act are compoundable at any stage of proceedings, he, therefore, submits that in view of above, the present criminal revision is liable to be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 do not oppose the present criminal revision. They submit that since the dispute between the parties is quasi civil in nature and the parties have amicably settled their dispute even after the judgment of conviction was passed but in view of the law laid down by Apex Court, no further prosecution of the revisionist is desirable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that compromise can be entered into by the parties;-

i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582

iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721

xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

xxi. Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834

xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936.

xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under:

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;

16.2. 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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

16.4. 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;

16.5. 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;

16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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;

16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. 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;

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-

"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

7. The issue as to whether, compromise can be entered into by the parties even after a judgment of conviction has been passed is also no longer res-integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramgopal and Another (Supra).

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that though revisionist was convicted and fined by the trial court which order was affirmed by the appellate court, however, irrespective of above, the parties have subsequently entered into an amicable settlement. As per the terms of settlement, the entire amount payable to opposite party 2 now stands satisfied. Consequently, the civil liability standing against the revisionist having been satisfied, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal prosecution of the revisionist. Moreover, the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute.

9. In view of above and also the law laid down by the Apex Court as noted herein above, the present criminal revision succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

10. It is accordingly allowed.

11. The impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-3, Agra in Complaint Case No. 6903275 of 2018 (Smt. Bharti Gidwani @ Bharti Devi Vs. Sanni Agrawal), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station-Nai Ki Mandi, District-Agra as well as the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-7, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2022 are hereby quashed.

12. Cost made easy.

Order Date :- 1.3.2024

Vinay