Sandeep Singh @ Sandeep Singh Patel and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26415 of 2023 Applicant :- Sandeep Singh @ Sandeep Singh Patel And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Shashank Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶1Third supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶3The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings of Case No.93 of 2000 (State vs. Sandeep Singh and Others), arising out of Crime No.188 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 380, 427, 323 IPC, P.S. George Town, District Allahabad (Now Prayagraj), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Special Magistrate/M.P./M.L.A. Allahabad.

¶4It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants in the year 2000 but now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that now the complainant of case does not want to pursue this case. It was submitted that incident of the case relates to the year 1992, regarding theft of Rs.335, Tape recorder, V.I.P. case, some clothes and Rs.3,000/- and now both the parties have compromised the matter amicably. Learned counsel argued that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, proceedings of impugned case may be quashed on the basis of compromise of the parties.

¶5Learned counsel for the complainant has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and stated that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now complainant of the case does not want to prosecute the applicants. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of complainant, wherein he has averred that both the parties have compromised the matter. It was stated that both the parties have already filed compromise before the trial court and the same has been verified and report of the same has been filed before this court and thus, impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.

¶7So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, recently in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its eralier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak

(2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under: "13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶8Keeping the above stated position of law in mind, in the instant case the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and does not have any serious impact on society if parties compromise the matter. The compromise between the parties has already been verified by the trial court and the certified copy of the same is available on record. The incident relates to the year 1992. In view of compromise between the parties and considering the fact that the incident relates to the year 1992, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the parties to the process of criminal trial, particularly, when a period of about 31 years already been passed since incident. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedent.

¶9Considering the above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings of case in question. Accordingly the entire proceedings of Case No.93 of 2000 (State vs. Sandeep Singh and Others), arising out of Crime No.188 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 380, 427, 323 IPC, P.S. George Town, District Allahabad (Now Prayagraj), are quashed.

¶10Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Neeraj High Court of Judicature at Allahabad