Allahabad High Court
Smt. Reeta Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18601 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 04.06.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.69 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station- Jaitpura, District- Varanasi, Cognizance Taking Order dated 01.08.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IVth, Meerut in above-mentioned case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No.932 of 2019 (Smt. Rita Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another), arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IVth, Varanasi.
It transpires from record that an F.I.R. dated 26.03.2019 was lodged by first informant, Smt. Tara Devi @ Munni Devi, which was registered asCase Crime No.69 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station- Jaitpura, District- Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely Rita Devi and Sanjay Kumar Tripathi (applicants herein) have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of same in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigation Officer formed an opinion that a charge-sheet should be submitted. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 04.06.2019, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC.
Upon submission of above-noted charge-sheet, coginzance was taken by court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 01.08.2019. Accordingly, Criminal Case No.932 of 2019 (Smt. Rita Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) came to be registered in which applicants are alleged to have been summoned.
During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties a compromise deed dated 25.08.2020 was drawn, which has also been verified by a notary. Photocopy of the same is on record at page-30 onwards of the paper book. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, an application dated 08.10.2020 duly supported by an affidavit was filed by informant/opposite party no.2 praying therein that since compromise has been entered into between parties, she does not wish to continue with the prosecution of applicants, who are charge-sheeted accused. Certified copy of application as well as the affidavit are on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the basis of above-mentioned application, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above mentioned criminal case in view of compromise so entered between parties.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for applicants that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, 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 its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 do not oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for applicants.
It is contended by Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 that once informant herself has compromised with 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. He has further invited attention of Court to the short-counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, wherein averments made in present application including the factum of compromise between parties have been admitted.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of 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. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011 (10) SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC226
7. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
8. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653
9. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
10. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
11. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641
12. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
13. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
14. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688
15. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
16. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 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) has observed 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.
Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines 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 recognizes 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 a conviction 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties, as well as the fact that present case is a case of civil nature, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No.932 of 2019 (Smt. Rita Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another), arising out ofCase Crime No.69 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station- Jaitpura, District- Varanasi, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- IVth, Varanasi, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021 Saif