Virendra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 38251 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Virendra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2024

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182154
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11831 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Virendra
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Muhammad Azam,Shahroze Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. Heard ShriMuhammad Azam, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant today is taken on record.

3. The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.365 of 2018 (State Vs. Virendra and others) arising out of case crime no.959 of 2017, under sections 363, 366 IPC, Police station-Siddhartha Nagar, District-Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant on 09.06.2017 with an intention to marry.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself is delayed by about 16 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that the victim herself is living with the applicant and married him out of her own sweet will.

6. It is next argued that out of the said wedlock, three children were born and all the four are living happily with the applicant. The instant proceedings are nothing but misuse of process of law.

7. There is no likelihood of conviction in the instant case as the victim was a consenting party.

8. The matter has been settled between the parties once for all as the informant herself has filed an affidavit through Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the informant stating that she has no objection, if the instant proceedings against the applicant are quashed.

9. Therefore, continuing the trial is just wastage of the valuable time of the Court. Under these changed circumstances, the entire proceeding pending against the applicant may be quashed in the light of compromise jotted down between the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.;

7. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by the Full Bench of Supreme Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", (2017) 9 SCC 641, has laid down the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

i. "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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii.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.

iii. 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;

iv. 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;

v. 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;

vi. 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;

vii. 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;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;

ix. 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

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."

11. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that he has no objection, if the matter is decided on the lines of compromise entered between the parties.

12. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application but could not dispute the said factum of compromise.

13. With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute, the Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

14. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands ALLOWED. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending against the applicant are hereby quashed.

15. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned within 20 days.

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

Sumit S

(Justice Krishan Pahal)