Allahabad High Court
Nitu @ Nitesh Pal And Others vs State Of Up Another on 15 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6767
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1859 of 2024
Applicant :- Nitu @ Nitesh Pal And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, learned A.G.A and perused the record on board.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings including summoning order dated 22.05.2017 in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2017 (State Vs Nitu @ Nitesh Pal & others), arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) (dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act 1989, Police Station-Ata, District-Jalaun, pending before the court of Special Judge [SC/ST Act], Jalaun at Orai.
3. During pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 20.2.2024 has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, the order dated 20.2.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:
"Sri Kamal Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, let it be kept on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 are present.
According to the counsel for the parties, the parties have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed is appended at page-53 of the paper book. As some of the sections involved are non-compoundable, hence, the directions are sought in this regard for the trial court to verify their compromise deed.
The dispute is personal and the compromise between the parties would not affect the society adversely, hence, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today alongwith their compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the time stipulated alongwith their compromise deed, the trial court shall verify the said compromise deed, pass a verification order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the verified compromise deed alongwith the certified copy of the verification order passed thereon, to this Court within 15 days thereafter.
A report be summoned from the District Magistrate concerned through the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad as to how much amount was received by the opposite party no.2/ victim as compensation from the State Government with regard to the present case.
Opposite party no.2 is directed to deposit the amount, if any, received by him and place its receipt before the Court on the date fixed.
List on 21th March, 2024 in the additional cause list.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2017, State Vs. Nitu @ Nitesh Pal & others, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989, Police Station Ata, District Jalaun, pending before the court of Special Judge [SC/ST Act] Jalaun at Orai."
4. In pursuance of the order dated 20.2.2024 passed by this Court, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai has submitted compromise verification report dated 1.4.2024 along with copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 30.3.2024 As per compromise verification report, both the parties have appeared before the court below, who have been identified by their respective counsel and, accordingly, compromise has been verified. It has further been observed that Rs. 75,000/- received by the victim under the SC/ST Act towards compensation has been returned to the Government Exchequer through chalan (paper No. 37Ka). For ready reference, order dated 30.3.2024 is quoted herein below:-
"?????? ????
?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???, ?????? ???, ?????, ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? 35? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ? ?????????? ????-???? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ??????? ????
???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????, ?????? ????? ??????, ???? ??, ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??????, ?????? ?????? 676/1984 ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???, ?????? ??? ????? ???????, ????? ????? ????? ???, ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????, ???????? ????? ??????, ???? ??, ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ??????? ??????, ?????? ????? ?????? 14029/2022, ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????, ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????, ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? 75,000/- ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? 37? ???????? ???? ????
??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ???
????? ????????? (??????/ ??????????).
????? ????? ????
30.03.2024"
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and burried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667. (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
6. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :-
"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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; (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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) 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; (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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
9. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 15.1.2025
vinay
