Allahabad High Court
Nadim Shah And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176664 Court No. - 93 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20246 of 2023 Applicant :- Nadim Shah And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Baldev Shukla Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the parties. However, Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, is present.
It is reported that the Bar Association of Allahabad High Court has passed a resolution that all members of Bar will abstain from judicial work on 11.9.2023 and it is requested to Hon'ble the Chief Justice that no adverse order be passed against the advocates in their absence.
Heard Sri Rajneesh Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it appears that both the parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of that compromise, the present application has been filed to quash impugned charge sheet dated 21.6.2019 as well as cognizance & summoning order dated 4.9.2019 in Criminal Case No. 4770 of 2019 (State vs. Nadim Shah and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2019, u/s 323, 325, 427, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur, pending before C.J.M., Ghazipur.
This Court, by order dated 12.7.2023, had directed the parties to file the compromise before the court below and further a direction was issued to the court below to duly verify the compromise and after verification of the same, submit its report to this Court.
In pursuance of the order dated 12.7.2023 of this court, the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghazipur has submitted his report dated 4.8.2023, mentioning therein that the compromise dated 6.5.2023 has been verified by order dated 4.8.2023 and a copy of the verified compromise has also been annexed with the report.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 the 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 the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-
"15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender."
Considering the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below by order dated 4.8.2023 as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 4770 of 2019 (State vs. Nadim Shah and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2019, u/s 323, 325, 427, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur, pending before C.J.M., Ghazipur, is hereby quashed.
With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 11.9.2023 Vandana