Rekha Devi v. Jogram and Others) u
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189216 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20405 of 2024 Applicant :- Jogram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Shri Anil Kumar Pandey as the counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 15.10.2024, District Social Welfare Officer, Kannauj, has submitted its report dated 20.11.2024 with an averment that no financial assistance/compensation amount has been provided to Smt. Rekha Devi (opposite party no.2). Copy of the report dated 20.11.2024 is taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and perused the record. 4. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kannauj as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 26 of 2024 (State Vs. Jogram and Others) arising out of Complaint Case No. 135 of 2020 (Rekha Devi Vs. Jogram and Others) u/s 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Talgram, District- Kannauj. 5. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 20405 of 2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 28.05.2024 is quoted herein below: "1. Heard Mr. Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 26/2024 (State Versus Jogram and others), arising out of Complaint Case No. 135 of 2020 (Rekha Devi Vs. Jogram and others), under sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj on the basis of compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, 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 reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. 4. Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. 6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified. 7. Upon due verification of compromise as well as compensation amount, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 8. Put up this case on 19.09.2024 as fresh. 9. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 6. In pursuance of the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by this Court, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has submitted its compromise verification report dated 10.09.2024 and order dated 03.09.2024. It evince from the orders dated 03.09.2024 that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, compromise has been verified in pursuance of both the parties. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal 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 applicants 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. 8. 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." 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. 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. 11. 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. 12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed. 13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Sumit K.