State v. Naseem
Case Details
Court No. - 78Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112086 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20182 of 2024 Applicant :- Waseem @ Naseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
11. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. 12. The entire proceedings relating to Case No. 1207 of 2014 (Old Case No. 2152/IX/2012), State Vs. Naseem @ Waseem, arising out of Case Crime No. 458 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Mughalpura, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, is hereby quashed. 13. This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application. 14. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 9.7.2024 T. Sinha
Arguments
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today on behalf of Private-Opposite Party No. 2, which is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 1207 of 2014 (Old Case No. 2152/IX/2012), State Vs. Naseem @ Waseem, arising out of Case Crime No. 458 of 2008, under Sections 363, 366 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Mughalpura, District- Moradabad, as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 18.7.2009, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad on the basis of compromise executed between the parties on 17.5.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report dated 29.11.2008 has been lodged by mother of the victim against the applicant on the basis of false and frivolous allegations with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant and the victim have filed an application under Section 482 No. 29737 of 2012 and in pursuance of orders dated 1.11.2023 and 8.5.2024, the compromise dated 17.5.2024 has been verified by the court concerned and certified copy of the compromise as well as order of verification is on record as Paper Book Page Nos. 49 to 52. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that the applicant and the victim are residing happily as husband and wife since 2008 till today. It is further submitted that the informant of the present case has been died in the year of 2020. On being arrived at mutual consent, both the parties have come to terms and decided to part their ways and therefore, no useful 2 purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending the present case be finally decided. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 argued that as the applicant has already arrived at amicable settlement on 17.5.2024, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant. 6. Heard Sri Prashant Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 7. Both the parties entered into a amicable settlement, and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and are living as husband and wife happily and have jointly submitted that in the interest of justice the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. 8. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed that: (SCC p.340, para 58). "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.." 9. Where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc. the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceeding to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties. [Vide: Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692]. 10. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the 3 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16) "16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. While the inherent poser 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. 16.5. 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. 16.6. 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 or 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. 16.7. 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. 16.8. 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. 4 16.9. 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 case oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence 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."