State v. Pinta
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:195415 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7608 of 2024 Applicant :- Pinta Alias Vijay Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Bahadur Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 1123 of 2023 (State Versus Pinta @ Vijay and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 233 of 2023, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s SC/ST Act, Police Station Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras, pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Harhras and against the summoning order dated 26.10.2023 passed in the aforesaid case, on the basis of compromise. 3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court. Having considered the amicable settlement took placed between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 11.03.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 7608 of 2024, has relegated the parties to appear before the court below to get the compromise verified took place between the parties and also direct the District Magistrate to submit report regarding payment of compensation, if any. For ready reference, the order dated 11.03.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:- "Learned counsel for the applicants is present. Though Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate, submits that he wants to file his vakalatnama on behalf of opp. party nos. 2 and 3, let it be filed within a week in registry itself. The parties are said to have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed is appended at page 35 of the paper book. As some of the sections involved are non compoundable, a direction is sought for the trial court to verify the compromise deed. The dispute is personal and the compromise between the parties would not affect the society adversely, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today along with the compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the stipulated period mentioned above, the trial court shall verify the compromise deed, pass an appropriate order thereon and transmit the certified copy of the compromise deed along with the certified copy of the order passed thereon to this court within 15 days thereafter. Meanwhile, a report be summoned from the District Magistrate concerned through the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad to make it clear as to what amount of compensation has been received by the victim or first informant from the State with regard to the present case. The victim is directed to deposit back the compensation amount, if received by her /him from the State in the present case, with the State Exchequer and submit its receipt by the next date of listing. List on 12.4.2024 in the additional cause list. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants" 4. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by this Court, District Magistrate, Hathras has submitted report dated 03.04.2024 to the effect that victim has not received any compensation amount under SC/ST Act. 5. Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has submitted compromise verification report dated 01.04.2024 along with compromise verification order dated 28.03.2024 to the effect that both the parties were appeared before the court below and they have been identified through their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties in the open court, who have admitted the factum of compensation and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire proceedings 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. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 8. Learned A.G.A. 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. 9. 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. 10. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the settlement/agreement inked between the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action Order Date :- 12.12.2024 T.S.