Kamlesh Prajapati and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12775 of 2022 Applicant :- Kamlesh Prajapati And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Shukla,Pratyush Shukla Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the compromise and certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 filed on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶3The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of summoning order dated 20.02.2020 as well as proceeding of the Complaint Case No.3914 of 2019 (Smt. Arti Prajapati vs. Kamlesh Prajapati and other), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the basis of compromise.

¶4It is submitted that that instant matter is arising out of matrimonial discord. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into the compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 18.09.2023, has directed the parties to get their compromise verified by the court concerned. For ready reference order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State are present.

¶2It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise dated 26.05.2023. The said compromise application dated 26.05.2023 has been filed before the trial court. Certified copy of the compromise application dated 26.05.2023 has been filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 9-10.07.2023. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has nodded the factum of compromise and urged that the instant matter may be decided on the basis of the compromise.

¶3In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court before whom compromise has been filed is directed to verify the compromise in presence of both the parties, after recording their statement, and submit a verification report within a period of one month from the date of appearance of both the parties who are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 04.10.2023.

¶4List this matter on 07.11.2023, along with verification report submitted by the trial court, if any.

¶5Till the next date of listing interim order if any is extended."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Kanpur Nagar has submitted his verification report dated 07.11.2023 along with the copy of the compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023.

¶6Perusal of compromise verification report dated 07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 reveals that in pursuance of the order passed by this court, both the parties were present before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

¶7It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in the eventuality of the amicable settlement took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed.

¶8In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other, who are living peacefully. It is further submitted that to observe the peace and tranquility in the life of both the parties, instant matter is required to be decided finally in the light of the settlement. To 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.

¶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 application and compromise verification report dated 07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 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 verification report dated 07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 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.

¶12Having considered the compromise verification report dated

07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 verifying the compromise took place between the parties 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 verification report dated

07.11.2023 and compromise verification order dated 04.10.2023 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.

¶14Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Jitendra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad