Others v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194137 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26088 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Jafruddin Alias Jakir Hussain And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Mohit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for opposite party nos. 2 to 6. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 160 of 2022 (State Vs. Zafaruddin and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2021, under Sections 323, 336, 504, 506, 308, 324 I.P.C., Police Station- Khandoli, District- Agar arising out of charge sheet dated 19.08.2021 as well as summoning order dated 27.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Agra. 3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. On the basis of compromise, present applicants have moved an Application U/S 482 No. 34899 of 2023 (Jafaruddin @ Jakir Hussain And 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others) for quashing the criminal proceeding. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 22.11.2023, has disposed of the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified with liberty to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of verification of compromise. For ready reference, order date 22.11.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.08.2021, summoning order dated 27.06.2022 and proceedings of Case No. 160 of 2022 (State vs. Zafruddin and others) arising out of case crime no. 194 of 2021, under Sections 323, 336, 504, 506, 308 & 324 I.P.C., P.S. Khandoli, District Agra pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Agra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged a first information report on 11.06.2021 against the applicants, namely, Zafruddin @ Jakir Hussain, Salman, Arman and Mubeena, for the alleged offence under Section 147, 336, 323, 504, 506 & 308 I.P.C., in which after culmination of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 19.08.2021, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. Thereafter, parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application dated 31.07.2023 has also been filed before the concerned Court below. Copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure no. 5 to the application. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Accordingly, the concerned Court below is directed that if any such compromise has already been filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the Court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
With the aforesaid directions the application stands disposed of." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 22.11.2023, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra has passed compromise verification order dated 17.01.2024. Certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 8. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents 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, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. For ready reference order dated 17.01.2024 is quoted herein below: "17.01.2024 भदनतनभकत 22.11.2022 पततवलल पपश हहई। अभभययकगण व वतदल उपसससत हह। पककतरर दतरत समझझतत पतसरनत पत मय मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप पत० पत अगरत धतरत 34899/2023 कत नकल आदपश दतखखल भकयत गयत। मत० उ० नयतयतलय कप आदपश कप अनयपतलन मम पकगण दतरत समझझतत पत भदनतनभकत 31.07.2023 नयतयतलय कप समक आज भदनतनक 17.01.2024 कर पसतयत कर बल भदयत गयत खजसप आज पककतरर कर शतर समझतनप कप उपरतनत तसदलक भकयत गयत खजसमम पककतरर कप फरटरगतफ चसपत भकयप गयप हह। पककतर वयभकगत रप सप नयतयतलय कप समक उपसससत हह। अभभययकगण एवन वतदल कक पहचतन उनकप भवदतन अखधवकत दतरत सतयतभपत कक गई। खजसकप उपरतनत पककतरर दतरत यह कसन भकयत गयत भक उनकप मधय सयलह भबनत भकसल भय जरर जबरदसतल एवन दबतव कप सवहसचचक रप सप कक गई हह। खजसमम उपररक समझझतत सतयतभपत भकयत गयत तसत पततवलल कत भतग बनतयत गयत। समझझततनतमत तसदलक भकयत गयत। पततवलल वतसतप एफ०ओ० भदनतनक 06.03.2024 कर पपश हर।" 5. 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. 6. 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." 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Sumit K.