Allahabad High Court
Ansul Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7171 of 2020 Applicant :- Ansul Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct Section 506 I.P.C. as Section 505 I.P.C. during the course of the day.
Sri Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama along with compromise affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 199 of 2019 (State Vs. Ansul Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 0184 of 2019 under Sections 504, 505 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya pending before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Auraiya, and also to quash the charge sheet dated 31.08.2019 along with cognizance order dated 26.11.2019.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that F.I.R. of impugned case has been lodged due to mis-conception and now both parties have amicably settled their dispute and that the complainant of the case does not want to pursue this case. It was submitted that applicant is a young boy aged about 17 years and that alleged dispute is of private nature and thus the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 concurred with arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that both parties have amicably settled their dispute and now opposite party no.2 does want to proceed with case pending before the trial Court and thus proceedings may be quashed as no useful purpose would be served by exhausting process of trial and it would be sheer misuse of precious time of Court. Affidavit of first informant has also been filed along with copy of compromise deed.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection if parties compromise the matter.
So far as position of law on the point of quashing of proceedings on ground of settlement is concerned, recently in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2019, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others, decided on 05.03.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its earlier decisions in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh, decided on 4.1.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar, decided on 22.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No.9859/2013, has held as under:
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:
i) that 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;
ii) 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;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like 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;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."
Keeping the above stated position of law in mind, in the instant case the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and does not have any serious impact on society if parties compromise the matter. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The matter has amicably been settled between parties and the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the applicant. Considering the above stated law and facts of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings of case in question.
Accordingly, proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2019 (State Vs. Ansul Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 0184 of 2019 under Sections 504, 505 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya pending before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Auraiya, and charge sheet dated 31.08.2019 along with cognizance order dated 26.11.2019, are hereby, quashed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020/S.Ali