Anurag Rastogi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 28 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1401 of 2024 Applicant :- Anurag Rastogi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Shri D.P. Dutt Tiwari, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.143 of 2014 dated

13.10.2014 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.2836 of 2016 (State vs. Anurag Rastogi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.253A of 2014, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Chowk, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the compromise deed executed between the contesting parties on 05.02.2024, wherein the opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that the parties have entered into compromise and have sorted out their differences and disputes. It has also been averred that the opposite party no.2 did not want to pursue the matter any more against the applicants and he has no objection if the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants are quashed in the light of the compromise. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by Shri D.P. Dutt Tiwari, the leraned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and he has submitted that he has instructions from his client not to make any objection in allowing this peititon. There would be no harm and error and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-

¶1B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another

(2003) 4 SCC 675

¶2Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶3Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1

¶4Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another,

(2011) 10 SCC 705

¶5Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶6K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶7Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC

¶8Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

¶9Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

¶10C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

¶11C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC

¶12Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC

¶13Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

¶14Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

¶15State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

¶16State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC

¶17Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

¶18Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another

(2020) 3 SCC 736

¶19Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI

AAHIR

@

PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:- i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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." With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences and are trivial and insignificant, it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence, the impugned charge sheet as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of aforesaid case crime number pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the covenants of the compromise executed between the contesting parties. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days. Order Date :- 16.2.2024 M. Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench