Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar And 4 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 17 December, 2020
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11489 of 2020 Applicant :- Amit Kumar And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi,Atul Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Shyam Bhasker Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vijay Shyam Bhasker, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
Applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet dated 11.04.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 24.12.2016 in Criminal Case No. 6781 of 2017 (State vs Radha Mohan and 4 others) arising out of Case Crime No.134 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sikandarpur, District- Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balia.
As per FIR version, on 17.03.2016 at about 10.00 a.m. when the informant was sitting at the door of his house, all of sudden, all five accused persons named in the FIR came there armed with sticks and started abusing to him. They have thrashed him badly. While he rushed into his house, they entered the house and started beating up. After hearing the fracas, Shiv Narayan Yadav and other came on the spot and intervened in the matter. Subsequently, all the accused fled away by threatening to the informant for life.
Vide order dated 26.06.2020 co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order:-
"Vakalatnama alongwith short counter affidavit filed today by Shri Vijay Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, Sri V.K. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order dated 24.12.2016 as well as entire proceedings of case no. 6781 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 0134 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sikandarpur, District- Ballia pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ballia and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Referring to the averments made in the affidavit, it is submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Though trial is going on yet continuation of proceedings of aforesaid case against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The said compromise shall filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
List this case on 21.9.2020 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence alongwith parties and compromise paper before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 10.8.2020 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order to the court concerned within two weeks.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants.
The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
At the admission stage, learned counsel for the applicants has referred the averments made in the affidavit and submit that both the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, present matter may finally be decided on the basis thereof. Vide order dated 26.06.2020 this matter was referred to the trial court for verification of the compromise. In pursuance of the order dated 26.02.2020 the court concerned has verified the compromise in presence of both the parties and submitted detail report on 13.08.2020, which is on record.
Counsel for the applicants has also filed verification order and a copy of the compromise along with supplementary affidavit. In the compromise application, it is stated that due to intervention of the respectable people of the society, both the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now they do not want to pursue the present proceeding.
In the light of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has prayed for allowing the present application and quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet dated 11.04.2016 as well as cognizance order dated 24.12.2016.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases:-
(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.
In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2017 SC 4843, 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. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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 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 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."
With the assistance of 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 guilt of the accused.
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 and the entire proceeding of above mentioned case, is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for follow up action.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 A.Kr.