Allahabad High Court
Azhar vs State Of U.P. . And Another on 11 August, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163841 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26347 of 2022 Applicant :- Azhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.891 of 2020 (New No.216/2022) (Smt. Sitara Vs. Azhar), under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha) on the basis of compromise, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (II), J.P. Nagar (Amroha).
3. Present application is arising out of complaint wherein allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant has been made against the present applicant. During trial both the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 05.09.2022 has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise. For ready reference order dated 05.09.2022 is quoted herein below :-
"Heard Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 891 of 2020 (New No. 216 of 2022) under Sections354, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Gajraula, District- J.P. Nagar (Amroha) pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)/ F.T.C.-II, J.P. Nagar in terms of the compromise dated 27.7.2022.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 27.7.2022. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the application. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
Put up as fresh on 11.10.2022 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to ensure his presence alongwith parties and compromise paper before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 22.9.2022 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-3 to the application to the court concerned within a week.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the Court concerned on the date fixed before it.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant."
4. In pursuance of the order dated 05.09.2022 learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M./F.T.C.-IInd, Amroha has submitted his verification report dated 28.09.2022 along with the verification order dated 22.9.2022 with an observation that both the parties were present personally and they have been identified by their respective counsels and the terms and conditions of the compromise was spelled out in the open Court to the parties, who have understood the same and admitted the factum of the compromise and, accordingly, compromise has been verified.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M./F.T.C.-IInd, Amroha verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.
6. To quash the cognizance/summoning 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.
7. In a 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."
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of 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.
9. 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.
10. In 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 Complaint Case No.891 of 2020 (New No.216/2022) (Smt. Sitara Vs. Azhar), under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar (Amroha), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (II), J.P. Nagar (Amroha) is hereby quashed.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 11.8.2023 Md Faisal