Allahabad High Court
Ram Vilas Pasi And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11805 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Vilas Pasi And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Lalit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Verma Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-applicants challenging the entire proceedings of Case No.23 of 2016, (State Vs. Suggan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pipari, District- Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kaushambi.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which occurred on 20.10.2015, informant/opposite party no.2, Smt. Pinki lodged a delayed F.I.R. on 23.10.2015. Same was registered as Case Crime No.382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pipari, District- Kaushambi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Parmanand @ Bhupendra (applicant no.2), Suggan Bhunjwa and Ram Vilas Pasi (applicant no.1) have been nominated as named accused.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that in above-mentioned case crime number police proceeded with investigation and upon completion of statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. ultimately submitted a charge-sheet dated 23.01.2016 against accused including present applicants, whereby they have been charge-sheeted under Section 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Upon submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned. Consequently, Case No.23 of 2016, (State Vs. Suggan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pipari, District- Kaushambi came to be registered, wherein applicants have been summoned.
During the pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties entered into an amicable settlement outside the Court and on the basis of settlement which was arrived at between parties a compromise deed dated 13.06.2020 was filed before court below. Compromise deed has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support of application. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.23 of 2016, (State Vs. Suggan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pipari, District- Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kaushambi.
This Court vide order dated 28.09.2020 directed the court concerned to verify the compromise and submit its report. For ready reference order dated 28.09.2020 is reproduced herein under:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 23 of 2016 (State Vs. Suggan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0382 of 2015 under Sections 452, 324, 354(B), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, District Kaushambi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Nishad learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that both the parties have compromised the matter and the copy of compromise deed may be sent for verification to the Court concerned, where the said case is pending.
In view of aforesaid, it is directed that the copy of compromise deed, annexed with present application as annexure-7, be sent to the court concerned for verification and the report be called from the court concerned by the next date fixed."
Pursuant to order dated 28.09.2020, court concerned sent its report dated 27.10.2020, which is on record. Perusal of same goes to show that factum of compromise between informant/opposite party no.2 and applicants herein only has been found to have taken place.
As no orders have been passed by court below on the basis of aforesaid compromise, applicants who are accused have approached this Court in exercise to its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. However, during the pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed has also been filed before court below seeking disposal of case on the basis of compromise.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. It is contended by learned counsel for informant that once informant herself has compromised with the accused-applicants, then in that eventuality, she cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677],
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
6. Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ACC 278,
7. State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296.
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. 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.23 of 2016, (State Vs. Suggan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2015, under Sections 452, 324, 354B, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pipari, District- Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kaushambi, insofar as they relate to present accused-applicants, namely, Ram Vilas Pasi and Bhupendra @ Parmanand Pasi, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Saif