Allahabad High Court
Devi Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 599
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46050 of 2019 Applicant :- Devi Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Kapoor Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 entire criminal proceeding as well as consequential proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 1993 arising out of Criminal Misc. No.07 of 1992, (Mohan Singh Vs. Tularam and others) under section 395 IPC, Police Station-Achhnera, District-Agra pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2019 between the parties.
The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked by the applicants who are four in numbers namely, Devi Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sahab Singh and Ramesh Chandra on one hand and Mohan Singh(opposite party no.2) on the other. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that contesting parties are inter se related to each other. The genesis of the case starts from filing of the complaint case wayback in the year 1992 whereby opposite party no.2 has lodged the complaint against seven persons out of which three persons have already died with the allegation that accused persons have looted Rs.150/- and Rs.125/- from the father of opposite party no.2. After recording the statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants, on 02.02.1993, were summoned under section 395 IPC. The next contention is that another application bearing no. 19334 of 1993 titled as 'Tularam and others Vs. State of U.P.' was filed which was eventually disposed of on 06.05.1999. It appears that order of disposal could not be transmitted to the court concerned and since then, the matter was pending unattended. All of a sudden, relying upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, learned Trial Judge on 22.11.2019 issued N.B.W. against the existing accused/applicants for the incident said to have taken place in the year 1992. It is next contended that though the offence under which the applicants were summoned i.e under section 395 Cr.P.C., is a serious offence triable by the sessions non-compoundable offence but keeping in view the inter se relationship between the contesting parties, intervening period and the amount involved with the intervention of certain common friends on 25.11.2019, both the parties have buried their difference and disputes and they are leading peaceful life.
No doubt that the offence under section 395 IPC is serious in nature and in the light of the judgment judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "The State of Madhya Pradesh VS. Laxmi Narayan and others" in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 decided on 05.03.2019, this is non-compoundable offence and it is a crime against society but the inter se relationship between them, the amount involved and the incident took place about 28 years back and all the existing accused persons are now in the range of senior citizen and moreover, opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the case any more. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and it would not be proper to water the dying tree and animosity between them.
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 compromise arrived at between the parties, entire criminal proceeding as well as consequential proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 1993 arising out of Criminal Misc. No.07 of 1992, (Mohan Singh Vs. Tularam and others) under section 395 IPC, Police Station-Achhnera, District-Agra pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Sumit S