Allahabad High Court
Hari Om Singh Chauhan And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 December, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196111 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34227 of 2024 Applicant :- Hari Om Singh Chauhan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Goswami,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Mishra, Binod Kumar Jha,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 as well as learned A.G.A.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in complaint Case No. 158 of 2009 (Tulsiram Versus Hariom and another) pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun at Orai for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Atra, District Jalaun in pursuance of the compromise dated 07.09.2024 between the parties.
3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2024, has directed the parties to appear before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, the order dated 15.10.2024 is quoted herein below:-
"1. Sri Abhishek Mishra and Sri Binod Kumar Jha, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 2, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of the aforesaid counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is submitted that in a complaint case, a summoning order has been passed on 18.4.2009. Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.5.2009 passed in Application U/S 482 No.12726 of 2009, has stayed further proceedings in complaint case No.158 of 2009. During the pendency of the proceedings, in pursuance of the ratio decided in the Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBI, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1046, criminal proceeding has been reinitiated. It is submitted that in the meantime, the complainant (Tulsiram) is no more, as averred in paragraph no.21 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, and his wife and son have been made party in the instant application as respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is further submitted that complainant had died on 20.12.2018, however, compromise arrived at between the present applicant (accused) and the respondent nos. 2 and 3. They inked compromise dated 7.9.2024 (Annexure no.1 to this application). It is lastly submitted that in the changed circumstances, both the parties have buried the hatchet and want to observe peace and tranquility. Therefore, the criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has nodded the submission as raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants and have admitted the compromise dated 7.9.2024 (Annexure no.1) inked between the parties.
5. In this conspectus, as above, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the court concerned on 24.10.2024 alongwith original copy of the compromise dated 7.9.2024. After receiving the copy of compromise, court concerned shall verify the same in the presence of both the parties, after recording their statements on record, and submit a verification report before this court within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the parties.
6. Learned court concern, Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai, is required to inquire from the concerned Samaj Kalyan Adhikari or any other relevant Officer as to the amount of compensation received by the opposite party or the complainant in the light of the Rule 18 of the SC/ST Rules, 1995, if any amount is being given by way of compensation by the State Government, it is mandatory and incumbent upon the opposite party to make good those payment within next 15 days to the treasury of the Government/Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Firozabad otherwise, the compromise would have no effect in the eyes of the law.
7. List this matter on 2.12.2024 along with verification report submitted by the court concerned, if any and record of Criminal Misc Application U/S 482 No. - 12726 of 2009 (Hari Om Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and another).
8.Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Complaint Case no. 158 of 2009, (Tulsiram Vs. Hari Om and Another), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Aata, District Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun at Orai, District Jalaun, shall remain stayed".
4. In pursuance of the order dated 15.10.2024, District Social Welfare Officer, Jalaun has submitted its report dated 26.10..2024 to the effect that victim /complaint has not received any compensation amount under SC /ST Act.
5. Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has submitted compromise verification report dated 11.11.2024 alongwith compromise verification order dated 28.10.2024 and copy of the compromise application. It has been observed by the court concerned that both the parties were identified by their respective counsels and in their presence compromise has been verified. It is also observed that complainant Tulsiram is dead. The contents of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
8. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise 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 was verified in presence of 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 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 settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action Order Date :- 13.12.2024 T.S.