Allahabad High Court
Aadesh Kumar Yadav And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 3126
Author: Y.K. Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15059 of 2020 Applicant :- Aadesh Kumar Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7670 of 2020 (State vs. Aadesh and others), arising out of charge sheet no. 842 of 2018, dated 23.12.2018, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 452 I.P.C., in Case Crime No. 1374 of 2016, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, as well as bailable warrant dated 28.01.2019 on the basis of compromise between the applicants and opposite party no. 2.
3. The earlier order dated 13.10.2020, after taking into account the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants that parties have settled their dispute amicably, directed the court below to verify the factum of the compromise.
4. A report dated 04.12.2020 received from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Kanpur is on record in terms whereof, the compromise between the parties has been verified.
5. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others1, it has been held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, where the dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties, who are willing to settle their differences amicably, and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Similarly in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I.2, compromise was permitted and criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise.
7. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another3, it has been held thus :
"61...the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. The broad principles with regard to quashment of FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings, in particular on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been settled was considered in Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathai Bhimsinhbhai Kumar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another4 and the position of law was summarised by laying down certain propositions. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:
"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 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."
9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana1 Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another2, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab3, Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathai Bhimsinhbhai Kumar and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another4 and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Another5, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be set aside.
10. The parties having decided to settle the matter amicably amongst themselves, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings. Matter deserves to be given quietus in the facts of the case.
11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings related to Criminal Case No. 7670 of 2020 (State vs. Aadesh and others), arising out of charge sheet no. 842 of 2018, dated 23.12.2018, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 452 I.P.C., in Case Crime No. 1374 of 2016, Police Station-Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
12. The application stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date:- 23.9.2021 Kirti (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J)