Allahabad High Court
Brajesh @ Brajesh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2020
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3487 of 2020 Applicant :- Brajesh @ Brajesh Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Srivastava,Suresh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vindeshwari Prasad Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha as well as order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Amroha and consequential order dated 01.01.2020 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant and proceeding of complaint case no.2335 of 2014 under section 420 IPC, Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 04.02.2020, parties are present in the Court along with their respective counsels. A draft of Rs.3,50,000/- bearing no.024132 dated 06.02.2020 in favour of opposite party no.2-Pushpa has been handed over by learned counsel for the applicant to learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the same has been handed over to opposite party no.2. After receiving the said draft, opposite party no.2 submits that she does not want to pursue the lis against the applicant pending against him. Opposite party no.2 further submits that she will give written undertaking within a period of ten days from today withdrawing the case against the applicant. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "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.
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 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;
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 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;
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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties, impugned order dated 08.09.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha as well as order dated 18.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Amroha and consequential order dated 01.01.2020 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant and proceeding of complaint case no.2335 of 2014 under section 420 IPC, Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Sumit S