Diwari Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33315 of 2022 Applicant :- Diwari Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manphool Singh Gaur Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

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

¶3The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding in Session Trial No.224 of 2014 (State Vs. Diwari Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.3004 of 2011, under Section 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Kayamganj, District-Farrukhabad pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist, Farrukhabad.

¶4Instant matter is arising out of property dispute between two brothers. With respect to the incident took place, cross F.I.R. has been lodged by both the brothers against each other. Instant application is arising out of Case Crime No.3004 of 2011. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, first informant has died and in his place his both sons (respondents no. 2 and 3) were permitted to prosecute the matter in place of first informant. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and amicably settled their dispute out of the Court.

¶5Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2022, has directed the parties to get their compromise verified. For ready reference order dated

17.10.2022 is quoted herein below :- "Shri Manphool Singh, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 2, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the entire proceeding in Session Trial No.224 of 2014 (State Vs. Diwari Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.3004 of 2011, under Section 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Kayamganj, District-Farrukhabad pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist, Farrukhabad. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that through good offices of certain well-meaning persons the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised in the matter. According to the counsel there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that as the opp. parties are not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court and is not inclined to give any evidence against the accused, the acquittal of the accused-applicants is now a foregone conclusion. It shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process, if the proceedings going on in the lower court are still allowed to go on further. Submission therefore is that in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed. Let compromise, if any, be filed before trial court, where it shall be verified in presence of both sides and after its verification, certified copy of compromise along with verification report of trial court concerned, be filed on record of this Court, by way of supplementary affidavit. List this case on 5th December, 2022 as fresh. The further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed till the next date of listing with regard to the applicants."

¶6Due to some personal difficulties, both the parties could not appear before the court concerned in time, therefore, on the request made on behalf of counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023 granted further time fixing 16.10.2023 to appear before the court concerned to get their compromise verified. In pursuance of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by this Court, both the parties have appeared before the court concerned and get their compromise dated 10.01.2022 (paper no. 72A) verified. Compromise verification order dated 16.10.2023 is endorsed on the reverse side of the application. Certified copy of the compromise application and the compromise verification order dated 16.10.2023 are filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. Contents of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties in the open Court. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of settlement/agreement 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.

¶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 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 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicant 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