Arif and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17751 of 2021 Applicant :- Arif And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Pandey,Varun Kumar Agnihotri Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A.

¶2The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.851 of 2019, State vs. Arif & others, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S.-Swar, District-Rampur, arising out of Case Crime No.614 of 2018 in respect of Charge Sheet No.530 of 2018, dated

24.11.2018,pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur and also quashing cognizance order dated

12.04.2019 endorsed upon the charge sheet.

¶3With respect to the incident allegedly took place in the intervening night of 06/07.09.2018, wherein one boy namely Chottu has sustained bullet shot injury owing to joy firing an F.I.R. has been lodged. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court.

¶4Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3, this Court vide order dated 01.12.2021 has directed the parties to appear before the court below to get their compromise verified and the court concerned was also directed to verify the compromise and submit its report within four weeks. For ready reference, order dated 01.12.2021 is quoted herein below :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.851 of 2019, State vs. Arif & others, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.s.-Swar, District-Rampur, arising out of Case Crime No.614 of 2018 in respect of Charge Sheet No.530 of 2018, dated 24.11.2018,pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur and also quashing cognizance order dated 12.04.2019 endorsed upon the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 jointly submit that nothing as alleged has been committed by the applicants, however, the applicants and the complainant have entered into a compromise on 22.07.2019. They have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and have decided not to contest the case against each other. Copy of the compromise deed dated 22.07.2019 is on record as Annexure No.6 to this application. In view of the above, the applicants as well as opposite party no.2 are directed to approach the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Rampur by filing appropriate application for verification of the compromise within two weeks from today and the Court concerned after receiving the application shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties and submit its report to this Court within four weeks thereafter. List this case in the week commencing 17.01.2022 in the additional cause list before the appropriate Bench. Meanwhile, the process, if any, is found to be issued against the applicants, the same shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that this case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 01.12.2021, learned Incharge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), District Rampur has submitted report dated 18.11.2023 along with copy of the compromise and compromise verification order dated 06.12.2021. Perusal of compromise verification report and the compromise verification order reveals that compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties in pursuance of the order passed by this Court.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of settlement took place between the parties and compromise verification report/order submitted by the court concerned verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. There is no grudges between them against each other who have burried the hatchet. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶8Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

¶9Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 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 was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 do not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶10Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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.

¶11In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶12Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 VR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad