Allahabad High Court
Sanawwar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17323 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanawwar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3.
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 in Court today is taken on record.
This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 13.06.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.108 of 2019, under sections 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Charthawal, District- Muzaffar Nagar, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2019 passed by concerned Magistrate, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No.1780/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Smt. Reshma and Others) arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 26.03.2019, a prompt F.I.R. dated 26.03.2019 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.2, Arvind and was registered asCase Crime No.108 of 2019, under sections 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Charthawal, District- Muzaffar Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Sanawwar, Salman @ Chhotu and Smt. Reshma, i.e., applicants herein have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of same in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigating Officer formed an opinion that a charge-sheet should be submitted against all named accused, i.e., applicants herein. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 13.06.2019, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections 307, 506 IPC.
Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar by a common order dated 21.08.2019 took cognizance and simultaneously summoned accused-applicants in Criminal Case No.1780/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Smt. Reshma and Others).
During pendency of case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed was drawn on 06.10.2020 in between informant/opposite party no.2, Arvind and named accused:- Sanawwar, Salman @ Chhotu and Smt. Reshma. Said compromise deed has been verified by a notary. Photocopy of the same is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above-noted compromise, present application was filed by all the charge-sheeted accused praying therein that entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be quashed in view of compromise entered between the parties.
Present application came up for admission on 03.12.2020 and this Court passed following order:-
"Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 alongwith a short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard the counsel for the applicants and the A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash charge-sheet dated 13.6.2019, cognizance order dated 21.8.2019 and Criminal Case No. 1780/9 of 2019 (State v. Smt. Reshma & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2019, under Sections 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzzaffar Nagar.
It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into a compromise. The compromise has been annexed as Annexure No.'5' to the application.
The applicants shall file an application along with the compromise before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzzaffar Nagar within ten days for verification of the compromise who on receiving the said application shall take steps for verification of the compromise within 15 days from the date of receiving the application and the compromise and shall prepare a report which shall form part of the records of the case. The parties on filing a suitable application, shall also be given the certified copy of the report.
Put up again as fresh on 12.1.2021 before appropriate Court, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till 12.1.2021, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 1780/9 of 2019 (State v. Smt. Reshma & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2019, under Sections 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzzaffar Nagar.
The case shall not be treated as tied-up or part heard to this Bench."
In compliance of above order dated 03.12.2020, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar proceeded to verify the compromise. Concerned Magistrate accordingly, vide order dated 17.12.2020, verified the compromise in between the charge-sheeted accused and informant/opposite party no.2. However, court below has observed that accused, Salman did not appear before court below for verification of compromise.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of relegating the parties to Court below as parties have compromised and same has been verified by court below. He has further invited attention of Court to the medico-legal report of injured, photocopies of which are on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. In the supplementary report dated 31.03.2019, the doctor, who had examined injured- Dishu, has opined that injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the compromise between the parties. He however, contends that accused-applicant no.2, Salman @ Chhotu has not appeared before court below for verification of compromise. Therefore, compromise entered between parties cannot be said to be verified regarding aforesaid charge-sheeted accused. It is then contended that vakalatanama has been signed by accused-applicant no.2, Salman @ Chhotu and present application has been filed on 23.11.2020, but accused-applicant no.2, Salman has not appeared before court below for verification of compromise. From perusal of order dated 17.12.2020, it is apparent that accused-applicant no.2, Salman @ Chhotu has left for Saudi Arabia. However, nothing has been brought on record in respect of same. As such, the entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case, including the charge-sheet cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise in respect of accused-applicant no.2, Salman @ Chhotu.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties-2 and 3 does not oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for applicants.
It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite parties-2 and 3 that once informant/opposite party-2 has himself compromised with accused-applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011 (10) SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC226
7. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
8. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653
9. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
10. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
11. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641
12. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
13. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
14. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688
15. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
16. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) has observed that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. 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 expounded by Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, 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 recognizes 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 facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties, as well as the fact that present case is of simple injury, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned case in respect of applicant-1 and applicant-3. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. As applicant-2, Salman @ Chhotu has not appeared before court below to verify the compromise, the compromise does not stand verified qua applicant-2, Salman @ Chhotu.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed in part. Charge-sheet dated 13.06.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.108 of 2019, under sections 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Charthawal, District- Muzaffar Nagar, Cognizance/Summoning order dated 21.08.2019, as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1780/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Smt. Reshma and Others) arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar, insofar as they relate to applicant-1, Sanawwar and applicant-3, Smt. Reshma, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021 Saif