Rajeev and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31868 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajeev And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. None is present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶2The Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of Charge sheet dated 01.04.2022 and cognizance order dated

26.08.2022 and entire proceeding of Case No.3808 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Gajraula, District-Amroha, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, on the basis of compromise.

¶3Respondent no.2 has lodged an FIR against the present applicants levelling allegations of thrashing and criminal intimidation. During pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties have settled their dispute amicably

¶3Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court has issued a direction, vide order dated 10.10.2022, to the court below to verify the compromise entered into between the parties. For ready reference the order dated 10.10.2022 is quoted herein below : "Heard Mr. Prashant Sharma, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge sheet dated 27.10.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 374 of 2021, under sections 452, 323, 504 IPC, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning ORder dated 15.4.2022, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Case No. 488 of 2022 (State Vs. Amir Ahmad and Others), as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned case, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3 Rampur on the basis of compromise dated 19.1.2022 entered into by the parties. It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise

arrived

at

between

the

parties.

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. Put up this case on 30.11.2022 as fresh. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on

9.11.2022 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and sent to this Court by the next date. Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it. For the facts and reasons mentioned above, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in aforementioned case crime number, till the next date of listing."

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha has submitted his verification report dated 20.01.2023 alongwith copy of the compromise application supported with an affidavit. Copy of the compromise verification order dated 09.11.2022 is appended alongwith verification report dated 20.01.2023. Perusal of the compromise verification order dated 09.11.2022 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the Court and 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. Accordingly, compromise has been verified by the Court.

¶5It 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.

¶6To 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.

¶7In 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."

¶8Learned 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 9.11.2022 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

¶9Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and compromise verification order dated 9.11.2022 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.

¶10In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 09.11.2022 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.

¶11Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 9.11.2023/vkg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad