Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23836 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 03.05.2017 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in F.R. Criminal Misc. No. 42 of 2017 (Smt. Tej Kunwar vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another) under Sections 323, 504, 506 427 IPC and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Baragaon, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no. 2 Smt Tej Kunwar lodged an FIR while submitting an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the present applicants on 18.02.2013 and thereafter the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Baragaon, District Jhansi. He added that opposite party no. 2 was medically examined at Maharani Laxmibai Hospital, Jhansi wherein the injuries were found simple in nature. After the aforesaid FIR was lodged and investigation was done thereafter final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 13.03.2013 and protest application was filed by the present applicants before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhansi on 29.10.2016. He next submits that learned Magistrate without considering the facts and merit of the case, have summoned the present applicants on 03.05.2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that infact there was a civil dispute which itself reveals from bare perusal of the FIR. He added that parties were sit together and came to amicable settlement and compromised the matter.
He further argued that they approach this Court by way of filing this instant application wherein this court vide order dated 02.03.2022, remitted back the matter for verification of compromise before the court below. In compliance thereof the court below has sent a report with a covering letter dated 25.04.2022, wherein the certified copy of the compromise deed and the compromise verification order has also been appended.
On the aforesaid premises, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that once parties have entered into the compromise then no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal case and interest of justice would be sub-served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has supported the version made by learned counsel for the applicant. It is contended that informant himself has compromised with the accused applicants then in that eventuality there could have no any objection on his behest and the entire criminal proceeding which is under challenge in this application may be quashed. He has further invite attention towards short counter affidavit and has drawn attention towards paragraph 4 and 5 which supports the contention and the version of the applicant.
On the other hand, learned AGA has no objection with the submission aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the proceedings against the applicants are quashed. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. 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 propounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others Vs. State of Gujarat And Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 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 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."
Considering the fact that the compromise between the parties has been entered into which is on record and counsel for both the parties are also present. Counsel for the opposite party who is present, has no objection to this compromise deed. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove as also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of summoning order dated 03.05.2017 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in F.R. Criminal Misc. No. 42 of 2017 (Smt. Tej Kunwar vs Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another) under Sections 323, 504, 506 427 IPC and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Baragaon, District Jhansi, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022 Ujjawal