Nawab Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8986 of 2023 Applicant :- Nawab Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Gupta Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of impugned order dated 31.1.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 648 of 2013 (State vs. Nawab Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 504 IPC, Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura on the basis of compromise.

¶3Showing the date of incident dated 27.5.2022, both the parties have lodged cross-FIRs against each other. Present application is arising out of FIR No. 114 of 2012, however, another application under Section 482 No. 8738 of 2023 (Padam and three others Vs. State of UP and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 114-A of 2012 has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.5.2023.

¶4It has been submitted that during pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 17.3.2023, has directed to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, the order dated 17.3.2023 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2, has filed a short counter affidavit. It is taken on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have compromised the matter and a compromise application dated

24.01.2023 has been filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Mathura, where the proceedings are pending. It is urged that the Magistrate is not verifying the compromise. The Magistrate is directed to verify the compromise application filed before him, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after due identification of both parties, and thereafter, forward a copy of the same along with a certified copy of his order to this Court positively, before the next date fixed. Lay this application as fresh again on 27.03.2023. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 648 of 2013) under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Magorra, District - Mathura, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Mathura. It is, however, clarified that this order will not hinder the Magistrate in verifying the compromise. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Mathura through the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura, by the Registrar (Compliance), by Monday."

¶5In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura has submitted his verification report dated 24.3.2023 along with copy of the compromise verification order dated 24.3.2023, compromise application dated 24.3.2023 (paper No. 178Ka) supported with affidavit of Bacchu Singh S/o Chandan Singh (first informant) (paper No. 179Kha) and affidavit of several injured persons namely Amar Singh S/o Charan Singh, Baldev Singh S/o Shivchandra Singh, Jawahar Singh S/o Lalaram, Naveen S/o Bacchu Singh, Sher Singh S/o Ajay Chandra and Padam Singh S/o Mahendra Singh.

¶6Perusal of compromise verification order report dated

24.3.2023 reveals that both the parties have appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Parties have stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any coercion and duress and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 24.3.2023, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges between them against each other. 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 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 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶11Having considered the compromise verification report dated

24.3.2023, compromise verification order dated 24.3.2023 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 arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, 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 :- 28.11.2023 vinay High Court of Judicature at Allahabad