Rahul Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37133 of 2023 Applicant :- Rahul Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, leaned A.G.A. for State and Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.

¶2This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 18.02.2018 submitted in Session Trial No.15 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.1609 of 2017 (State vs. Rahul Tiwari), under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Golhaura, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar.

¶3At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, applicant and prosecutrix have solemnized marriage. He further contends that the prosecutrix is in family way on account of having solemnized marriage with applicant and out of wedlock they have two minor children. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the order passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.No.29093 of 2021 (Sheebu vs. State of U.P. & another). Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that applicant's case is similar with the facts of the case decided in the proceeding challenged in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.No.29093 of 2021. He therefore contends that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case.

¶4Per contra, the learned A.G.A. State and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 do not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. In Para No.12 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, it has been stated that opposite party no.2 is living happily with the applicant and they have minor children and on the basis of changed circumstances, opposite party no.2 having no grievance at all.

¶5This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another

(2003)4 SCC 675 ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 iv. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011

(10) SCC 705 v. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vi. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 vii. Yagendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653 viii. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 ix. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688 x. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 (9) SCC 641 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶6Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;

16.2. 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.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

16.4. 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;

16.5. 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;

16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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;

16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

16.8. 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;

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, this Court is of the view that since the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and parties have already amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.

¶8In view of above, present application is allowed.

¶9Accordingly, proceedings of Session Trial No.15 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.1609 of 2017 (State vs. Rahul Tiwari), under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.-Golhaura, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶10There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 SKD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad