Allahabad High Court
Ajeet And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1463 of 2021 Applicant :- Ajeet And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madan Lal Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, leaned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet No. 1 (A-44 of 2020) dated 04.04.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 40 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C. P.S.-Jahanaganj, District-Azamgarh, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 25.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Azamgarh, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 994 of 2020 (State Vs. Akeet and Others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12. Azamgarh.
3.It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which occurred on 08.03.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 08.03.2020 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.-2 Golu and was registered as Case Crime No. 40 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C. P.S.-Jahanaganj, District-Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Subhash, Ajeet, Geeta and Buity (applicants herein) have been nominated as named accused.
4. After registration of above mentioned F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer, ultimately submitted a charge-sheet dated 04.04.2020 whereby named accused namely Subhash, Ajeet, Geeta and Buity (applicants herein) have been charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C.. Upon submission of above mentioned charge sheet, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh by a common order dated 26.06.2020 took cognizance and simultaneously summoned the accused. As a consequence of aforesaid, Case No. 994 of 2020 (State Vs. Akeet and Others), under sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C P.S. Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh came to be registered in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid order, applicants, who are accused have now approach this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. During the pendency of above mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court and on the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a joint application dated 29.01.2021 was filed before court below praying therein that since the parties have compromised the dispute outside the court, therefore, the case be decided in terms of comprise.
6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During the pendency of case, parties have entered into settlement and on the basis of settlement so arrived between parties, a joint application dated 29.01.2021 praying therein that the matter be decided on the basis of compromise. In view of above no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case this Court itself quashes the entire proceedings of above mentioned case, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for the informant/opposite party-2 contends that once the opposite party-2 who is the informant has himself compromised with applicants, he now cannot have any objection in case the entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has further admitted the joint compromise affidavit filed in court below.
8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 iv. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011 (10) SCC 705 v. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vi. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 vii. Yagendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653 viii. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 ix. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688 x. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions;
16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. 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.
16.3. 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;
16.4. 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;
16.5. 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;
16.6. 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;
16.7. 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;
16.8. 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;
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."
10. In the light of above, I have examined the injury report of injured Suresh Yadav which is on record at page 13 of paper book. Perusal of the same goes to show that injured Suresh Yadav has not sustained any injury which can be said to be fatal or grievous on any part of body. In fact, it is a case of no injury.
11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for parties, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
12.Accordingly, proceedings of Case No. 994 of 2020 (State Vs. Akeet and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C. P.S.-Jahanaganj, District-Azamgarh pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12. Azamgarh are hereby quashed.
13.The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 YK