Sonu Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6345 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                         NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 301 of 2017

      1. Sonu Agrawal son of Shri Kailash Chandra Agrawal, aged about
      27 years, Occupation Business, R/o. Village Narmadapur, P.S.
      Kamleshwarpur (Mainpat), District Surguja (C.G.)

      2. Prashant Tiwari, son of Shri Madan Kumar Tiwari, aged about 25
      years, Occupation Private Service, R/o. Village Rajpur, P.S. and Tahsil
      Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.).

      3.   Prateeksha Tiwari, D/o. Shri Madan Kumar Tiwari, aged about
      22 years, Occupation Student, R/o. Village Rajpur, P.S. and Tahsil
      Rajpur, District Balrampur (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

      1.     State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Home
      Department (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
      District Raipur (C.G.)

      2.     Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

      3.     State House Officer, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja
      (C.G.)

      4.    Pramod Kumar Seth, son of Rajendra Kumar Soni, aged about
      36 years, R/o. Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

                                                              ----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Agrawal and Mr. Arhan Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board 18.10.2022

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of FIR No. 85/2016 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja for the offence under

Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 342 & 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and for fair investigation of the case.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9.8.2016 respondent No. 4/complainant lodged FIR against the petitioners and one other person alleging therein that on 4.8.2016, petitioners/accused persons abused him, assaulted him and threatened him to kill and also wrongful confined him and looted ATM Card, laptop, cash amount of Rs. 7,500/- and mobile, etc.. Based on above facts, present crime was registered against the petitioners and one other co-accused person.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners and respondent No. 4/complainant have settled their dispute and, therefore, petitioners do not want to further prosecute this petition, as the dispute has been resolved between them amicably. It is further submitted that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties, with the permission of this Court, statements of petitioners and respondent No. 4 have been recorded by Additional Registrar (Judicial), in which, respondent No. 4 has stated that he does not want to further prosecute aforesaid FIR and, therefore, the petitioners have also stated that they do not want to further prosecute this petition, thus, FIR bearing Crime No. 85/2016 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja and Criminal Case No. 1157 of 2017, which has been filed against the petitioners pursuant to that FIR, may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 supported the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the matter pertains to private dispute of the parties and they have stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them, hence, in view of above, appropriate order may be passed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Pursuant to the order dated 15.9.2022 of this Court, statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 4 have been recorded by Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 22.09.2022, in which, they have stated that matter has been settled between them amicably. Respondent No. 4, who is complainant, has

also deposed that due to settlement arrived at between them, he does not want any action pursuant to the FIR bearing Crime No. 85/2016 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja and Criminal Case No. 1157/2017 arose from aforesaid FIR, which is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja. They have also deposed that they have voluntarily made settlement and the same has been executed without fear, pressure or inducement.

9. In case of Dimpey Gujral -v- Union Territory and others 1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under :-

"6. The question which now remains to be answered is whether since one of the offences alleged in the FIR is non- compoundable, the FIR could be quashed.

7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some of the offences were non-compoundable. A two-Judge Bench [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2010) 15 SCC 118] of this Court doubted the correctness of those decisions. The learned Judges felt that in those decisions, this Court had permitted compounding of non- compoundable offences. The said issue was, therefore, referred to a larger Bench. The larger Bench in Gian Singh [ (2012) 10 SCC 303] considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments of this Court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such

1 (2013) 11 SCC 497

power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or

continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this Court in Gian Singh (supra), we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26-10-2006 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court are hereby quashed."

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and others 2 and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa 3 has dealt with the matter and has expressed the need of allowing the compromise between the parties even in non-compoundable offences, however, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

11. In the instant case, though some of the offences registered against the petitioners are non-compoundable but considering the fact that it is a case of private dispute between the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute, hence, the offences, which are non-compoundable, can be quashed with the leave of this Court.

2 (2019) 5 SCC 688 3 (2013) 5 SCC 226

12. In view of above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court to form an opinion to quash the FIR (Annexure P-1) in question and subsequent proceedings and concerned criminal case.

13. Consequently, FIR No. 85/2016 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 342 & 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and consequent criminal case No. 1157 / 2017 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) deserve to be and are hereby quashed only against the present petitioners.

14. In view of the above, present petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs.

Sd/-

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

D/-