Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Saeed And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 September, 2023
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:188424 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22266 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Saeed And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A/S1550,Sunil Kumar Singh 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 and perused the record.
2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.104 of 2021 (Heena Vs. Mohd. Saeed and others), under Sections 452, 323, 354 IPC, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, pending in the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha on the basis of compromise dated 18.12.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 has moved a complaint levelling allegation of house trespass and molestation. Learned Magistrate has issued a process against the present applicants under Sections 452, 323, 354 IPC, vide order impugned dated 06.04.2021. During the proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise. In presence of both the parties, this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2023, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of compromise.
4. For ready reference, order dated 02.08.2023 is quoted herein below:
"1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ram Awadh Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Today Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.
3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 104 of 2021 (Heena Vs. Mohd. Saeed and others), under Sections 452, 323, 354 IPC, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.
4. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 also supports the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and prays for quashing of the said Complaint Case No. 104 of 2021.
5. On the basis of compromise date 18.12.2022 arrived at between the complainant and the applicants herein, learned counsel for the applicants submits that instant complaint has been filed due to some dispute with regard to sale and purchase of some property. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant complaint is a cross case, to the case which was filed by the applicant no. 1 herein. He further submits that in the complaint lodged by the complainant an Application u/s 482 No. 22018 of 2023 (Mujahid and three others Vs. State of U.P. and another) in the said case the compromise dated 16.12.2022 has been sent for verification to the trial court by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2023.
6. In view of the aforesaid, let the opposite party no. 2 and applicants appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha on 10.8.2023. Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to verify the compromise dated 18.12.2022 filed before him and submit a verification report by 17.8.2023 before this Court.
7. Put up on 17.8.2023, as fresh along with Application u/s 482 No. 22018 of 2023 (Mujahid and three others Vs. State of U.P. and another) before appropriate Court.
8. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. "
5. In pursuance of the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha has submitted its verification report dated 28.08.2023 along with verification order dated 25.08.2023 and copy of the compromise application. Perusal of the compromise application and the verification order reveal that both the parties have put their signature and photographs of all the parties are affixed on the compromise application. Compromise was supported by an affidavit filed by opposite party No.2. In verification order dated 25.08.2023, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha has observed that both the parties were present before the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. It has further been observed that the terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into the compromise, accordingly, the compromise has been verified.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that with respect to the incident in question initially an FIR being Case Crime No.21 of 2021 was lodged by the applicant No.1. At a later stage, complaint has been filed in counter blast on behalf of the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that arising out of Case Crime No.21 of 2021, an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.22018 of 2023 has been filed before this Court, which was allowed on the basis of compromise took place between the parties and accordingly the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.21 of 2021 was quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. They are living peacefully without any grudges between them against each other. To quash the summoning order dated 06.04.2021, learned counsel for the applicants 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.
8. 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."
9. Learned AGA 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.
10. 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 applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.
11. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 28.08.2023, compromise verification order dated 25.8.2023 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.
12. 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 entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023 Mini