Awadhesh @ Abdhesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17616 of 2023 Applicant :- Awadhesh @ Abdhesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kaushlesh Datt Shukla Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 as well as 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 Case No. 1277 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Awadhesh and others), under Sections 324, 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Khera Rathore, District-Agra.

¶3With respect to the incident took place on 05.07.2022, cross case has been filed by both the parties against each other. Instant matter is arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2020. During pendency of proceeding, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably outside the Court.

¶4Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 has directed to the parties to get their compromise verified from the court concerned. For ready reference order dated 09.08.2023 is quoted herein below :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶2The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 1277 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Awadhesh and others), under Sections 324, 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Khera Rathore, District-Agra, on the basis of compromise held between both the parties.

¶3An F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0022 of 2020 dated 05.07.2020, has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 making allegation against all the four applicants for thrashing him badly and abusing him.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise dated 12.04.2023, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to this application. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudge between them against each other, therefore, present application may be allowed and criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants may be quashed.

¶5In this conspectus, as above, learned trial court concerned, before whom the compromise dated 12.04.2023 has been filed by the parties, is hereby directed to verify the compromise in the presence of both the parties after recording their statement and submit a verification report within one month from the first date of their appearance, who are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 28.08.2023.

¶6List this matter on 03.10.2023 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned.

¶7Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in the aforesaid Case No. 1277 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Awadhesh and others), under Sections 324, 323, 504, 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Khera Rathore, District-Agra, shall remain stayed."

¶5In pursuance of the order of the dated 09.08.2023 passed by this Court, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Agra has submitted verification report dated 28.08.2023 along with copy of the compromise dated

12.04.2023 and compromise verification order dated 28.08.2023. Perusal of the verification report dated 28.08.2023 reveals that on 12.04.2023, both the parties have appeared before the court concerned and got their compromise (Paper No. 11-Ka) verified. 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.

¶6Learned 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 verifying the compromise took place between the parites, 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.

¶7In 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."

¶8Learned 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.

¶9Learned 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.

¶10Having 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.

¶11In 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.

¶12Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 VR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad