Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22203 of 2023 Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Sri Manish Dwivedi, learned Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, which is taken on record. Let his name be printed in the cause list as counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 when the case is listed next.

¶2Supplementary Affidavit filed today on behalf of the present applicant is also taken on record. A copy thereof is served upon Opposite Party No. 2 today in Court.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶4The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 9.1.2023, charge sheet dated

7.12.2021 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No./Session Trial No. 22 of 2023 (State Vs. Sudhir) arising out of the Case Crime No. 609 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat pending before Additional District and Session Judge (Special SC/ST Act), Baghpat on the basis of compromise.

¶5As per FIR version, accused (applicant herein) has shot fire at the family of first informant, however, they narrowly escaped and, thereafter, he has abused them and threatened them of life. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, owing to the intervention of the elders, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.6.2023, has directed the court concerned to examine the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and verify the same, in case, the same is found to be correct. For ready reference, the order dated 16.6.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.12.2021 and summoning order dated 09.01.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case/Session Trial No. 22 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 609 of 2021 (State Vs. Sudhir), under Sections-307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Baraut, District-Baghpat, pending in the Court of Session Judge, Baghpat. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the Annexure No. '4' of the affidavit accompanying the application, whereby both the parties have put their signatures and have wish to culminate the proceedings against each other. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. Under these circumstances, whether the parties have compromised the matter or not, it can be best ascertained by the trial court. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in case both the parties appear before the trial court within a period of three weeks from today and file an application for compromise before the trial court, the same shall be verified by the trial court in accordance with law and a report to this effect would be prepared, which would be made part of the proceedings and that the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy of the verification report. The parties may file the certified copy of verification report before this Court by next date. Put up this matter on 19.07.2023 as fresh. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant."

¶6In pursuance of the order dated 16.6.2023 passed by this Court, learned trial court has verified the compromise vide compromise verification order dated 7.7.2023. Certified copy of the compromise application and compromise verification order have been filed as annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶7A perusal of the verification order dated 7.7.2023 reveals that both the parties (first informant and the accused) have appeared before the court concerned personally and have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties concerned. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.

¶8Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification order dated 7.7.2023, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶9In 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."

¶10Learned 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.

¶11Learned 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶12Having considered the compromise verification order dated

7.7.2023 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.

¶13In 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.

¶14Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad