Allahabad High Court
Azad Alil And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165280 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15815 of 2023 Applicant :- Azad Alil And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.
2. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.617 of 2017 (State Vs. Azad Ali and 4 Others) under Section 147, 308, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 IPC, arising out of Crime No. 0421 of 2015, P.S. Gola, District Gorakhpur pending before the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Gorakhpur on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.
3. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court, compromise, which took place between the parties, has been verified by the court concerned vide order dated 24.02.2023. Certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 24.02.2023 is annexed as Annexure No. 5.
4. For ready reference, order dated 16.12.2022 is quoted herein below:
"By means of this application, applicants have approached this Court for quashing the charge-sheet dated 7.1.2016 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No.617 of 2017 (State Vs. Azad Ali and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0421 of 2015 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 and 308 I.P.C.,P.S.Gola,district-Gorakhpur on the basis of the compromise dated 13.5.2022 between the parties which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Anti Prevention of Corruption Act Court No.5, Gorakhpur.
Chandra Bhushan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants submits that parties have entered into a compromise and a document in this regard is placed on record. He further submits that parties will appear before the court concerned and get the said documents verified and thereafter this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the applicant arising out of Case Crime No.0421 of 2015 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325 and 308 I.P.C.,P.S.Gola,district-Gorakhpur.
This application is disposed of with the direction that Trial Court shall verify the above referred documents which is already placed on record before the court concerned in the presence of parties within a period of three weeks and thereafter the parties are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing a fresh application."
5. As per the verification order dated 24.02.2023, both the parties appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The compromise has been verified in their presence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the eventuality of the compromise taken place between the parties and the verification report submitted by the trial court, the present application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and now living peacefully and 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of 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.
9. 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 compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Vandit