Shashi Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17813 of 2023 Applicant :- Shashi Kant Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Anand Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching to quash the charge sheet dated 06.05.2016, cognizance order dated 27.07.2016 and entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No.2088/2017 (State Vs. Shashi Kant Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No.42/2016 under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506, 182 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, pending before Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Gorakhpur.

¶3With respect to the alleged incident dated 12.01.2016 cross FIR has been lodged by both the parties against each other. Respondent no.2 has filed the FIR being case crime No.0042 of 2016. However, present applicant has lodged FIR being Case Crime No.0043 of 2016. During pendency of the proceedings, owing to intervention made by the elders of the society, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court.

¶4Having considered the amicably settlement between the parties, on the request made by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 has directed the Court concerned to verify the compromise took place between the parties. For ready reference order dated 19.05.2023 is hereby quoted below : "1. List revised.

¶2Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶3The present application has been filed by the applicant-Shashi Kant Mishra, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding in Special Session Trial No. 2088 of 2017 (State Vs. Shashi Kant Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506, 182 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (X) SC / ST Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC / ST Act), Gorakhpur with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the parties have entered into compromise which is dated 23.12.2022, copy of the said compromise is annexed as Annexure no.5 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.

¶5Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicant 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.

¶6List on 14th July, 2023.

¶7Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2023, passed by this Court, learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur has submitted his verification report dated 01.06.2023 alongwith copy of the compromise application dated 31.05.2023 and compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023 as well as compromise verification report dated 1.6.2023 reveals that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, both the parties have appeared before the Court below to get their compromise verified. They have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they entered into compromise voluntarily without any duress.

¶6It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties and verification of compromise by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and living peacefully. They have no grudge against each other. Therefore, to observe the peace and tranquillity in the life of both the parties criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶7To quash the cognizance 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 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."

¶9Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise application and compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

¶10Learned 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 application and compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023 took place between 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.

¶11Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023 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.

¶12In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 31.05.2023 arrived at between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 7.11.2023/vkg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad