Imran Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17623 of 2022 Applicant :- Imran Ali And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Aqueel Khan Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

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

¶2The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 592 of 2009 (State Vs. Ammoo and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 3068 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Ganj, District Rampur.

¶3Respondent no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. showing the date of incident on 24.12.2008 wherein respondent no.2 and his family members were thrashed by the present applicants (accused). It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding between the parties, an F.I.R. has been lodged, however, 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 amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 30.06.2022, has directed the parties to get their compromise verified from the court concerned. Learned court concerned was directed as well to submit its verification report. For ready reference order dated 30.06.2023 is quoted herein below :- "Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present. They have submitted that the parties had arrived at a compromise. They have filed the compromise deed in the trial court and the copy of the same is annexed at page 18 of the paper book. The prayer is made to direct the trial court to verify the compromise deed. As the parties have amicably reached at a compromise, therefore, it is directed that if the parties appear before the trial court within 15 days and press upon their compromise filed therein, the trial court shall verify the compromise and pass an order thereon and transmit the compromise deed and the order passed thereon to this Court within 15 days thereafter. List and connect this application with Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4847 of 2022 on 08th August, 2022. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in S.T. No. 592 of 2009 (State Vs. Ammoo and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 3068 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Ganj, District Rampur."

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by this Court, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur has submitted verification report dated 31.08.2022 along with original copy of the compromise and compromise verification order dated

06.07.2022 which has been endorsed on the reverse side of the compromise. As per compromise verification order, both the parties have appeared before the court concerned and identified by their respective counsel. Accordingly, compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that with respect to the incident in question, cross case has been filed by both the parties against each other. It is further submitted that applicant no. 2 has lodged a cross case being Case Crime No. 3068-A of 2008 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Arising out Case Crime No. 3068-A of 2008, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.4847 of 2022 filed on behalf of Shahab Khan and 4 others has been decided by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of settlement/agreement took place between the parties and compromise verification order passed by court competent, 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.

¶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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶9Learned 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.

¶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 was verified in presence of 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 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.

¶12In 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.

¶13Let 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