Allahabad High Court
Dilshad And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 November, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224803 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16168 of 2023 Applicant :- Dilshad And 13 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur,Prem Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Singh Kushwaha Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned A.G.A.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceeding on the basis of compromise between the parties of Case No.359 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.366 of 2018 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that showing the occurrence of offence on 14.09.2018, both the parties have lodged cross F.I.R. against each other. Instant case is arising out of Case Crime No.366 of 2018 filed on behalf of respondent no.2, however, another Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.16146 of 2023 (Atikurrahman and Others vs. State of U.P. & Others) is arising out of Case Crime No.365 of 2018. During pendency of the case, both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. In the instant matter, having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 03.05.2023, has directed the parties to get their compromise verified from the court concerned and, simultaneously, learned Magistrate was directed to verify the compromise and submit verification report. For ready reference order dated 03.05.2023 is quoted herein below :-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 6 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.
4. Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned which shall be verified by the court concerned within three weeks thereafter and send its report to this Court.
5. List on 31.5.2023.
6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No.359 of 2021, under Sections147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Singhawali Aheer, District Baghpat pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat."
4. In pursuance of the order dated 03.05.2023, learned In-charge Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat has submitted compromise verification report 29.05.2023 along with copy of compromise and compromise verification order dated 29.05.2023 which has been endorsed on the reverse side of the compromise. The accused as well as first informant has appeared before the court below who have been identified by their respective counsel. Contents of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties in the open Court. Accordingly, compromise has been verified.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of compromise/settlement took place between the parties and on the terms and conditions of the compromise, instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the present applicant may be quashed. There is no grudges between them against each other who have burried the hatchet. 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.
6. 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."
7. 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.
8. 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
9. Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order 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.
10. 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.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 28.11.2023 VR