Raghvendra Singh @ Guddu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16777 of 2023 Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh @ Guddu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Mishra Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

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

¶2The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1631 of 2022 (State Vs. Raghvendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 328 (A) of 2003, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶3With respect to the incident dated 12.12.2023 cross case has been filed by the parties against each other. FIR being, Case Crime No.328 of 2003 was filed on behalf of the present applicants agaisnt the opposite paryt No.2 and his family members. On the other hand, with respect to the same incident in question, opposite party No.2 has lodged the present FIR, being Case Crime No.328

(A) of 2003. Earlier FIR, being Case Crime No.328 of 2003 was assailed before this Court by way of Application u/s 482 No.17392 of 2023 (Harishchandra and 6 others vs. State of U.P.). The aforesaid matter was finally decided by this Court, vide order dated 11.10.2023, on the basis of compromise. Cross case, being FIR No.328(A) of 2003 has been assailed in the instant application. During pendency of the proceeding both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court.

¶4Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 8.5.2023, has directed to the court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties. For ready reference order dated 8.5.2023 is quoted herein below :- "1. List revised.

¶2Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶3Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶4The present application has been filed by the applicants-Raghvendra Singh @ Guddu and Rajendra Singh with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1631 of 2022 (State Vs. Raghvendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 328(A) of 2003, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Akabarpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 25.01.2019, copy of the said compromise is annexed as Annexure no.6 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.

¶6Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.

¶7List on 04th July, 2023.

¶8Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 8.5.2023 passed by this Court, learned Second Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat has submitted his verification report dated 21.08.2023 with an averment that both the parties have appeared before this Court in pursuance of the order dated

8.5.2023 passed by High Court. They have filed their I.D. proof and, accordingly, compromise took place between the parties has been verified. Learned trial court has observed as well that the compensation amounting Rs.12,000/- which has been received by the victim, same has been returned to Social Welfare Department throguh bank draft No.513766 dated 27.7.2023 in the name of Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, District Kanpur Dehat. The aforesaid draft was deposited on 9.8.2023.

¶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 Second Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat 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 between them 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 Case No.1631 of 2022 (State Vs. Raghvendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 328 (A) of 2003, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Md Faisal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad