Allahabad High Court
Jagpal Singh @ Jagatpal Singh And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 December, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239464 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32043 of 2023 Applicant :- Jagpal Singh @ Jagatpal Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mrityunjay Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.471 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Jagpal Singh & others) arising out of the case crime no. 560 of 2018 under Sections 323,504, 506, 452 IPC Police Station Didoli, District Amroha pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that respondent no.2 has lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 560 of 2018 dated 05.12.2018 levelling allegation of thrashing, house trespass and criminal intimidation against the present applicants. During pendency of proceedings both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court has issued a direction, vide order dated 26.10.2023, to the court concerned to verify the compromise entered into between the parties and submit a verification report. For ready reference the order dated 26.10.2023 is quoted herein below:
"1.Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mrityunjay singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, who has filed vakalatnama and a short counter affidavit today, which are taken on record and Sri Sandeep Chaudhary, the learned AGA appearing for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.01.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 471 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Jagpal Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 560 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Didoli, District Amroha, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
3. On the basis of a compromise dated 01.06.2023, learned counsels for the applicants and opposite party no.2 jointly submit that the instant case was registered on against the applicants herein by the opposite party no.2 under some misconception and now the parties who are the neighbours have settled their dispute with the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both the parties. A compromise to that effect has been filed as annexure-3 to the instant application.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also supports the compromise between the parties and seeks quashing of the instant proceedings against the applicants herein in the light of the compromise between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the State does not have any objection, if the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court within a period of three weeks from today and file the compromise between the parties, which shall be verified by the learned Trial Court and the report of verification of compromise shall be sent by the learned Trial Court within two weeks thereafter.
7. Put up this case on 30.11.2023 as fresh.
8. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.
9. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."
4. In pursuance of the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by this Court, learned Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha has submitted his verification report dated 16.11.2023 alongwith copy of compromise and compromise verification order dated 16.11.2023 and affidavit of the first informant and victim. Perusal of compromise verification order as well as verification report reveals that both the parties including the victim (respondent no.3) have appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned who have admitted the factum of compromise.Accordingly, compromise has been verified in presence of both the parties.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties and verification of compromise by the court competent, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have arrived at compromise on their own volition without any duress. They buried the hatchet and living peacefully. They have no grudge against each other. Therefore, to observe the peace and tranquillity in the life of both the parties criminal proceedings may be quashed.
6. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-
(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.
(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
7. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-
"15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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;
(ii) 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.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant 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;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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;
(vi) In 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 approximately 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;
(vii) 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) 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;
(ix) 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
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."
8. Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise application and compromise verification order dated 16.11.2023 took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise application and compromise verification order dated 16.11.2023 took place between both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
10. Having considered the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 16.11.2023 took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise application and compromise verification order dated 16.11.2023 the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case, so far as it relates to the present applicants, is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 18.12.2023/vkg