Allahabad High Court
Sajid And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13031 of 2020 Applicant :- Sajid And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shweta Pandey,Punita Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tyagi Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit as well as short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 proceedings of Complaint Case No. 50 of 2018 (Smt. Farzana Vs. Sajid and others) under Sections 323, 452, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Didoli, District Amroha, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, District Amroha as well as to quash the summoning order dated 23.01.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that complainant/opposite party no.2 namely, Smt. Farzana is the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant no.1 and that complaint was filed due to some mis-understanding. It was further submitted that now the parties have amicably settled their dispute and that the complainant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel further submits that earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14797 of 2019 was filed by the applicants, which was disposed of by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2019 with liberty to the applicants to move discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. which was filed and is pending consideration before the learned Court below, however, in the meantime, parties have amicably settled their dispute. It was further submitted that the dispute is purely of private nature between the parties, thus in view of settlement between the parties, proceedings of impugned case may be quashed on the ground of compromise as the continuance of proceeding would be a futile exercise and it would be sheer misuse of time of Court.
Learned counsel for first informant/opposite party no.2 has concurred with the arguments of learned counsel for applicants and submitted that both parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise. Short counter affidavit of first informant has also been filed in which it was submitted that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed against the applicants.
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 in view the aforesaid position of law, in the instant case it is clear that both the parties are members of one and same family and matter is private in nature. In case the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise, it would not have serious impact on society. Accordingly, the impugned complaint and consequent proceedings of Complaint Case No. 50 of 2018 (Smt. Farzana Vs. Sajid and others) under Sections 323, 452, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Didoli, District Amroha, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, District Amroha including the summoning order dated 23.01.2019 are hereby, quashed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 8.9.2020 S.Ali