Zeeshan and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25276 of 2007 Applicant :- Zeeshan And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Mishra,Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Salman Ahmad,Saqib Meezan Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of charge sheet No.1151 of 2007 dated 31.08.2007, order dated 03.09.2007 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.2316 of 2007 (State Vs. Zeeshan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.2316 of 2007, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun.

¶3Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR against the present applicants with an allegation that they have enticed away his daughter. It is submitted that main accused applicant No.1 and daughter of opposite party No.2 have solemnized their marriage and blessed with three children. They are happy in their married life. At later stage, good sense prevailed in the mind of opposite party No.2 who entered into the compromise with the present applicants and settled the dispute amicably. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 31.03.2022 has issued a direction for verification of compromise.

¶4For ready reference, order dated 31.03.2022 is quoted herein below:- "The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them. Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification order of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit. List this case on 11.04.2022 before the appropriate Bench. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing. "

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 31.03.2022, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the compromise verification order dated 11.04.2022. Certified copy of compromise verification order dated 11.04.2022 and certified copy of compromise application dated 11.04.2022 (Paper No.31-Ka) have been filed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.05.2023.

¶6Perusal of the certified copy of the compromise application reveals that photographs of the accused and first informant as well as prosecutrix are affixed on the reverse side of fourth page of compromise. Both the parties have put their signatures over there. The compromise verification order dated 11.04.2022 is written on the reverse side of fourth page of compromise as well. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 11.04.2022 reveals that all the concerned parties were present personally before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. They have accepted an agreement dated 11.04.2022 (Paper No.31-Ka) and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of said compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. It is further submitted that now there is no dispute exists between the parties and they have no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶8In 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶9Learned AGA 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.

¶10Learned 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.

¶11Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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.

¶12In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Mini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad