Allahabad High Court
Ankit Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11033 of 2017 Applicant :- Ankit Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind K. Pandey,Ram Kumar Yadav,Ratnesh Kumar Yadav,Ravi Prakash Singh,Sandeep Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Dubey,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Nath Bhatt,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey,Shailendra Ratan Bhushan Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge sheet No. 1 of 2016 dated 13.11.2016 submitted in Case Crime No. 296 of 2016, under Section 306 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 359/9 of 2017 (State Vs.Ankit Kumar and others), now pending in Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Amroha.
Present application came up for admission on 13.4.2017 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 359/9 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2016 under Section 306 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Amroha Dehat, District Amroha pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ F.T.C., Amroha as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 13.11.2016 filed in the aforesaid case.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no marriage took place between the applicant no.1 and the daughter of the opposite party no.2.It is further contended that the daughter of the opposite party no.2 did not want to marry with the applicant as such she committed suicide on account of which the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further contended that there is nothing on record to show that no any demand of dowry has been made and nothing on record to connect the applicants in commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the allegations against the applicants is that they demanded Scooty motor cycle prior to marriage which itself falsifies the prosecution story.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants two weeks' thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
During the pendency of present application, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise application dated 25.3.2021 was jointly filed by parties before Court below. An application dated 25.3.2021 was filed that the said compromise be taken on record and the matter be decided in terms of the compromise so entered into between the parties. Aforesaid application was supported by the affidavit of first informant opposite party 2 Braj Pal Singh. Subsequent to above, applicants filed a supplementary affidavit dated 24.6.2021 before this Court.
Thereafter on 24.3.2022 this Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that matter has been compromised between the parties. She further states that the compromise dated 25.03.2021 (annexure-SA-1) has been filed before the Court below and the court below has directed to keep the same on record but same has not been verified as yet by the learned court below.
On these facts, as the matter is of matrimonial nature and the parties have arrived for some amicable settlement regarding which compromise duly arrived at between the parties is pending verification before learned court below and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to protect the right of the applicant pending final disposal of the matter. Learned counsel also submits that as the parties have entered into amicable settlement, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.
Till the next date of listing, interim order granted earlier shall continue to operate.
However, learned counsel for the applicants, as prayed, is granted three weeks time to get the compromise deed (annexure-SA-1) verified from the court below and file a certified copy thereof, on or before the next date of listing before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of this order before the court below within 10 days from today for compliance, failing which, interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and law will take its own course.
As prayed, list/put up this case as fresh in the week commencing 02.05.2022."
In compliance of above order dated 24.3.2022, parties appeared before Court below. The compromise so entered into by the parties was verified, vide order dated 4.4.2022 passed by Court below.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During pendency of above mentioned criminal case before Court below, parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a joint compromise application was filed before Court below. A certified copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to supplementary affidavit filed in present application.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged 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 its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for informant opposite party 2 does not oppose the present application. He has invited the attention of Court to the compromise application dated 25.3.2021 jointly filed by the parties, wherein the factum of compromise entered into between the parties has been admitted. He further contends that once first informant/opposite party 2 has compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality he cannot have any grievance in case proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. He contends that dispute between parties is basically a private dispute. Parties have already compromised which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no ground exists to continue the prosecution of applicant.
It is also contended by learned A.G.A. that once first informant/opposite party-2 has himself compromised with accused applicant, then in that eventuality, he 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 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 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736
19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
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."
Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-
"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties and the material on record, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, during pendency of present application, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties have been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicant is remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. 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. Consequently, entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 296 of 2016 as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 359/9 of 2017 (State Vs.Ankit Kumar and others), now pending in Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Amroha. are, hereby, quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed.
Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 4.7.2022 HSM