Allahabad High Court
Zahid Hasan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3252 of 2021 Applicant :- Zahid Hasan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of informant/ opposite party No. 2, by filing short counter affidavit along with his vakalatnama today in Court, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 2378 of 2018 (State Vs. Zahid Hasan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, under Sections 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Bachharaun, District Amroha, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 2.4.2018, a delayed F.I.R. dated 10.4.2018 was lodged by first informant Sajid Hasan and was registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, under Sections 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Bachharaun, District Amroha. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Jahid Hasan, Mehndi Hasan and Faheem 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. Upon completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 22.4.2018 against all the named accused persons. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned and ultimately applicants have been summoned in consequential case number detailed above.
During pendency of above noted criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a joint application was filed before Court below. In the aforesaid application it has been prayed that the matter be decided on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During pendency of case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a joint compromise application was filed before court below. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the basis of above mentioned joint compromise application, applicants who are 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 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 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 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for applicant.
It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 that once informant himself 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 the attention of Court to the short counter affidavit filed by opposite party-2, wherein the factum of compromise so entered between the parties has been duly admitted and further the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C, 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. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
7. Yagendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653
8. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
9. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688
10. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641 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 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, and also the submissions made by the counsel for parties, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
Accordingly, proceedings of Case No. 2378 of 2018 (State Vs. Zahid Hasan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, under Sections 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Bachharaun, District Amroha, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021 Arshad