Allahabad High Court
Shiv Kapoor Adarsh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161738 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25656 of 2024 Applicant :- Shiv Kapoor Adarsh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused applicant challenging the charge sheet dated 23.10.2023, cognizance order dated 01.02.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.10 of 2024 (State Vs. Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 506, 354, 323 I.P.C. P.S. Amapur, District- Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kasganj.
2. Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. under Sections 506, 354, 323 I.P.C. was registered on 26.04.2023 at P.S. Amapur, District- Kasganj against the applicant. After conducting the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet dated 23.10.2023 under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. against the applicant. On 01.02.2024, Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kasganj has taken cognizance under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C and summoned the accused applicant. Copy of the order is at page 36 of the paper and Criminal Case No. 10 of 2024 (State Vs. Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) was registered.
3. Apart from other grounds taken in the application, the counsel for the applicant submitted that opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Mamta, who was the informant, moved an application before the court below that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that in view of compromise, proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10 of 2024 be quashed.
4. When the matter was taken up on 09.09.2024, the counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute. On the aforesaid submission, this Court vide order 09.09.2024 directed that the compromise be verified. The order dated 09.09.2024 is quoted as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
2. Applicant has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet No. 207/2023 dated 23.10.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 01.02.2024 now registered as Case No. 10/2024 (State Versus Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023 under sections 323, 354, 504 of I.P.C. Police Station Amapur, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD)/A.C.J.M. Kasganj. In respect of compromise dated 26.06.2024 entered between the parties concerned.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the cognizance order dated 01.02.2024 now registered as Case No. 10/2024 (State Versus Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023 under sections 323, 354, 504 of I.P.C. Police Station Amapur, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD)/A.C.J.M. Kasganj. In respect of compromise dated 26.06.2024 entered between the parties concerned, during pendency of the present case before this Hon'lble High Court.
And/or may pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, otherwise the Applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the parties have settled their dispute out of Court on the basis of compromise. They have drawn the attention of this Court towards compromise deed dated 26.06.2024 in which it is stated that by amicable settlement both the parties want to resolve the aforesaid dispute. It is next submitted that the entire proceedings be dropped in light of the compromise deed filed by the parties. It is further submitted that the parties are also ready to appear before the court concerned for verification of compromise.
4. Learned AGA is having no objection, if any, such direction is given to the court concerned for verification of compromise executed between the parties.
5. As both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise has also been arrived between them, therefore, it is directed that both the parties shall appear before the court concerned within ten days and shall file an application along with the certified copy of this order for verification of compromise, enter between them.
6. If any such compromise is moved, then the court below shall verify the compromise, in accordance with law, and shall pass a reasoned order accepting or rejecting of compromise, in accordance with law and transmit verification report to this Court.
7. List on 03.10.2024 as fresh.
8. Office is directed to submit a report on the next date fixed in respect of verification report, if any, forwarded by the court concerned."
5. After the order dated 09.09.2024, learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kasganj submitted a report before this court mentioning therein that matter has been compromised between the parties and the same has been verified 27.09.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the dispute has been settled amicably outside the court and compromise entered into the parties has been verified before the court below, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No.10 of 2024 (State Vs. Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 506, 354, 323 I.P.C. P.S. Amapur, District- Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kasganj, be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant had relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Narindra Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 and the judgment of this Court in case of Sanesh Thakur and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Application u/s 482 No. 20982 of 2017 decided on 17.03.2023.
8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made in the application but could not deny the fact that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is compoundable in view of the table appended to Section 320 (1) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that Section 354 I.P.C. is not compoundable and therefore, present application cannot be decided on the basis of compromise between the parties.
9. In reply, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no impediment in exercise of powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their dispute amicably.
10. It is correct that Section 354 I.P.C. is not an offence mentioned in either of the Tables referred in Section 320 Cr.P.C. In case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Panjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 320 of the Code articulates the public policy with regard to compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and certain offences can be compounded only with the permission of Court. The offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320.
11. While considering the question with regard to the inherent powers of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which, he is allegedly involved, is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 57 of the judgment in case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence, they are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a Court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
12. From the perusal of record, it appears that the real dispute between the parties is that applicant tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and spoke ill words to her. The present criminal proceedings arose between the parties is not a formal consequence of the real occurrence. The present criminal prosecution arose incidently between the parties and is not a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their dispute amicably. The opposite party no.2 who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
13. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though the allegations made in the FIR do appear to contain the ingredients of a criminal offence, however, in view of settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but, if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials which are piled up, practically in all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.
14. Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between the parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), Parbatbhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (supra) and Sanesh Thakur and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.10 of 2024 (State Vs. Shiv Kapoor Adarsh) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 506, 354, 323 I.P.C. P.S. Amapur, District- Kasganj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Kasganj are hereby quashed.
16. The present application u/s 482 thus is allowed, subject to payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad. Such cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in particular and the society in general know that the courts cannot remain a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant behaviour of certain persons. A society that will allow its members to misuse its courts, will ultimately suffer and pay a huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always continue to stand in a common queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigants. That differentiation emerges only after the hearing is concluded in any case and hearing requires time. In fact, even if the courts were to take punitive action against a bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules of procedure and fairness, such cases are likely to take more time than a case of two genuine litigants. Cost in present case is quantified to Rs. 5,000/- (2,500 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 3.10.2024 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)