Allahabad High Court
Baburam And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7225 of 2021 Applicant :- Baburam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kumar Pal Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ashutosh, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Ram Kumar Pal, learned counsel for informant/opposite party No. 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 19.06.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 166 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur, Cognizance Taking Order dated 5.12.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, in aforesaid case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 516 of 2020 (State Vs. Babu Ram and others) under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur, now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 15.05.2020, a delayed F.I.R. dated 16.05.2020 was lodged by first informant opposite party 2 Mahanth Sri Raj Dass which was registered as Case Crime No. 166 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Totaram, Babu Ram, Harish and Rohit (applicants herein) have been nominated as named accused.
Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R. police proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 19.06.2020 whereby named accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated dated 5.12.2020. As a consequence of aforesaid, above mentioned criminal case came to be registered. Thereafter, applicants are alleged to have been summoned in above mentioned criminal case.
During pendency of above noted criminal case, informant opposite party-2 Mahanth Sri Raj Dass and accused applicants Totaram, Babu Ram, Harish and Rohit amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, an application dated 06.01.2021 duly supported by an affidavit has been filed by informant opposite party 2 before Court below. Certified copy of same is on record as Annexure 5 to the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Under the aforesaid compromise, parties have agreed to get the matter decided from Court on the basis of compromise. As no orders have been passed by Court below in the light of above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Learned counsel for applicants contends that during pendency of case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, an application dated 6.1.2021 was filed by informant opposite party 2 before court below praying therein that as parties have entered into compromise, informant does not wish to press the prosecution of accused applicants. Consequently, application be accepted and the matter be decided accordingly.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicants that 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 it's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 Mr. Ram Kumar Pal has supported the prayer made by learned counsel for applicants. It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 that once informant himself has compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has admitted the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. The factum of compromise between parties has also been admitted.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that accused applicants have been charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC. It is also contended that first informant opposite party 2 Mahanth Sri Raj Dass has sustained injuries. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed.
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) 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 guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, submissions made by counsel for the parties and upon perusal of injury report of injured Mahanth Sri Raj Dass, this court is of considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Admittedly, injuries sustained by above named injured are neither grievous nor fatal. The doctor, who has examined the injured, has opined that injuries sustained by above named injured are simple in nature. Injured Mahanth Sri Raj Dass has not sustained any grievous or fatal injury.
Accordingly, continuance of proceedings of Case No. 516 of 2020 (State Vs. Babu Ram and others) under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 504 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur, now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, shall not serve any purpose. The trial shall entail a futile pursuit resulting in loss of judicial time when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.
In view of above, application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Consequently, proceedings of Case No. 516 of 2020 (State Vs. Babu Ram and others) now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, are, hereby, quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021 HSM