Hari Kishan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7315 of 2023 Applicant :- Hari Kishan And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mhd. Saqib Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicants is taken on record.

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

¶3The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order 20.5.2022, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, District Aligarh as well as entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No. 2372 of 2022 (State Vs. Udayveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 546 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, District Aligarh.

¶4Opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR against the present applicants with respect to the alleged incident dated 18.12.2021. During pendency of criminal proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Considering the amicable settlement between the parties this Court vide order dated

28.02.2023 has issued a direction for verification of compromise application. For ready reference order dated 28.02.2023 is quoted herein below :- "Heard Mr. Ravi Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A..G.A. for State and Mr. Mohd. Saqib, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf ofopposite party-2 by filing his vakalatnama today in Court, which is taken on record. Perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging summoning order 20.5.2022, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, District Aligarh passed in Case No. 2372 of 2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties. It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. Put up this case on 18.4.2023 as fresh. Learned counsel for the applicants undertake to ensure the presence of the parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 28.3.2023. Court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and sent to this Court by the next date. Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it. In view of the fact that parties have entered into a compromise as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in aforementioned case crime number."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh has submitted the verification report dated 28.03.2023 along with compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023 and the copy of compromise application. Perusal of compromise verification report reveals that both the parties were present before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Contents of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they have voluntarily entered into the compromise. Certified copy of compromise application and certified copy of compromise verification order dated 28.03.2023 have collectively been filed by the applicants as Annexure-S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

¶7To quash the cognizance/summoning 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 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 contended that he has no objection in deciding the matter on the basis of compromise which has been duly verified by the court concerned.

¶10Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of 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.

¶11With 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 summoning order 20.5.2022, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, District Aligarh as well as entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No. 2372 of 2022 (State Vs. Udayveer and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 546 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Md Faisal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad