Jumma and Anr v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28250 of 2018 Applicant :- Jumma And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Munna Prasad Yadav Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State - respondent.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of Criminal Case No. 791 of 2018 in pursuance of Charge Sheet No. 48 of 2018 dated 17-02-2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2017 Under Sections 363, 366, 120-B of I.P.C. Police Station-Bhojpur, District-Moradabad pending in court of A.C.J.M. Court No. 3, Moradabad.

¶3Having considered the affidavit sworn on 07.08.2023 filed by opposite party no.2 (first informant) and joint affidavit of applicant nos. 1 and 3 (husband and wife) sworn on 23.07.2023, this Court directed the parties, vide order dated 13.10.2023, to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, the order dated

13.10.2023 is quoted hereinbelow : "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶2The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case Crime No.791 of 2018, pursuance of charge sheet No.48 of 2018 dated 17.02.2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad.

¶3Opposite party No.2 (first informant) has filed his affidavit sweared on

07.08.2023 with an averment that the applicant No.1 and daughter of the opposite party No.2 have solemnized their marriage and blessed with two children aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively, therefore, opposite party No.2 is not interested to prosecute the proceedings against the present applicants. A joint affidavit of applicant no.1 and opposite party No.3 (husband and wife) sweared on 23.07.2023 has been filed before this Court to the effect that they are no more interested to prosecute the instant matter, therefore, instant application may be allowed and criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶4Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has nodded the factum of compromise took place between the parties and urged that the instant application may be decided on the basis thereof.

¶5In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court below on 01/02.11.2023 and file their compromise application. Learned court below, on the compromise application being filed, shall verify the said compromise in the presence of the parties, after recording their statements, and submit his verification report within a period of one month from date of appearance of the parties.

¶6List this matter on 07.12.2023 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any.

¶7Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants in Criminal Case Crime No.791 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Moradabad."

¶4In pursuance of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 has submitted a report dated 08.11.2023 alongwith the copy of the compromise application, affidavit of the first informant and compromise verification order dated 08.11.2023. As per verification report/order, both the parties were appeared before the court concerned and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Both the parties have admitted the factum of compromise and states that they entered into the compromise on their own volition without any duress and oppression. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 08.11.2023, 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.

¶6In 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."

¶7Learned 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.

¶8Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 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.

¶9Having considered the compromise verification report dated

08.11.2023, compromise verification order dated 08.11.2023, 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.

¶10In 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.

¶11Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 7.12.2023/vkg High Court of Judicature at Allahabad