Om Prakash @ Prakashe and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10942 of 2021 Applicant :- Om Prakash @ Prakashe And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard 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.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of charge sheet dated

20.02.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 20.02.2020 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.394 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Om Prakash @ Prakashe and another), arising out of Case Crime No.346 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Parashrampur, District Basti, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Basti on the basis of compromise.

¶3It is submitted that opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. levelling allegation of cheating against the present applicants. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court vide order dated

24.08.2021 (corrected by order dated 31.08.2021) directed the court concerned to verify the compromise. For ready reference orders dated

24.08.2021 passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 14.12.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 394 of 2020 (State Vs. Om Prakash @ Prakashe & another), arising out of Case Crime No. 346 of 2019, under Sections-419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Parashrampur, District-Basti and cognizance order dated 20.02.2020 in the light of compromise dated 22.02.2021. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. List after two months. Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants."

¶4In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate has verified the compromise vide order dated 16.12.2021. Certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2021 and certified copy of the compromise dated 22.02.2021 (Paper No.5-kha) has been filed as Annexure No.S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 15.03.2022.

¶5Perusal of compromise verification order 16.12.2021 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the court concerned and admitted the factum of compromise. For ready reference order dated 16.12.2021 is quoted hereinbelow:- "दिनांक

16.12.2021-

प्ቔावली पेश हुई। वाी मुकमा हरि्ቐं्ቖ ्ቛाा ्ቚा्ቕना प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत क क्ቕन दिकया गया है दिक हम ्ቚा्ቕ! व मु቎ኌ#$मान के बीच सुलह हो गयी है। ्ቚा्ቕ! मुकमा लड़ना नहीं चाहता है। इसी स्त प मुकमें को समा्቎ काना चाहता है। सुलहनामा की कापी ्ቚा्ቕना प्ቔ के सा्ቕ संल्ሿ है। माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय के आेश दिनांक 31.08.2021 का ससम्मान अवलोकन दिकया गया। उ्ሹ आेश माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय ्ቛाा उभयप्ቌ ्ቛाा प्ቔावली में ाखि:ल सुलहनामा को तस्ीक कने हेतु दिन;शिशत दिकया गया है। उभयप्ቌ ्ቛाा प्ቔावली प ाखि:ल सुलहनामा दिनांदिकत 22.02.2021 ्ቚस्तुत दिया गया है त्ቕा यह अशिभक्ቕन दिकया गया है दिक हम ्ቚा्ቕ! व मु቎ኌ#$मान के बीच सुलह हो गयी है। ्ቚा्ቕ! मुकमा लड़ना नहीं चाहता है। इसी स्त प मुकमें को समा्቎ काना चाहता है। उभयप्ቌ ्ቛाा उपो्ሹ क्ቕन कते हुए सुलहनामा के आधा प ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚकण का दिनस्ताण दिकये $ाने हेतु याचना की गई है। प्ቔावली प ाखि:ल सुलहनामा प सभी प्ቌकाों का हस्ता्ቌ है त्ቕा पहचान प्ቔ की छाया्ቚतित संल्ሿ की गयी है। वाी मुकमा हरि्ቐं्ቖ न्यायालय के सम्ቌ 2 of 6 उप቎ኌस््ቕत होक पी०डब्#यू०-1 के रूप में त्ቕा गुदिड़या पी०डब्लू०-2 के रूप में त्ቕा ओम ्ቚकाश पी०डब्लू०-3 के रूप में उ्ሹ सुलहनामे को स्वीका दिकया गया है। उभयप्ቌ ्ቛाा स्वेच्छा से सुलह दिकये $ाने की बात कही गयी है त्ቕा सुलहनामा के आधा प ्ቚस्तुत ्ቚकण का दिनस्ताण दिकये $ाने की याचना की गयी है। उभयप्ቌ न्यायालय के सम्ቌ मय दिव्ቛान अतिधव्ሹा उप቎ኌस््ቕत हैं उनके ्ቛा प्ቔावली प ाखि:ल सुलहनामा दिनांदिकत-22.02.2021 में वቓኌणत तथ्यों की सत्यता को स्वीका दिकया गया है। तनुसा उ्ሹ सुलहनामा दिनांदिकत-22.02.2021 को तस्ीक दिकया गया। सुलहनामा दिनांदिकत-22.02.2021 प्ቔावली का भाग होगा। शादिमल दिमसिसल हो। इस आख्या की ्ቚमाशिणत ्ቚतित प्ቌकाों को अदिवलम्ब ्ቚान की $ाए। कायालय खिलदिपक को दिन;शिशत दिकया $ाता है दिक माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय के आेश के अनुपालन में इस आेश की ्ቚमाशिणत ्ቚतित माननीय उ्ሴ न्यायालय को अदिवलम्ब ्ቚेदिPत कें। दिनांक-16.12.2021 (पंक$ कुमा पाण्डेय) न्यातियक मसि$स्ट्रेट, न्यायालय क्ቌ सं०-13, बस्ती।"

¶6It 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 order 16.12.2021 passed by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed.

¶7In 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. 3 of 6

¶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 4 of 6 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 verification order dated

16.12.2021 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 verification order dated

16.12.2021 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. 5 of 6

¶11Having considered the compromise verification order dated

16.12.2021, 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.

¶12In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise verification order dated 16.12.2021 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 :- 8.11.2023 Jitendra 6 of 6 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad