High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159858 Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29739 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajeet Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. 1. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal
Facts
Case No. 11559 of 2023 ( State vs. Ajeet Pratap Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that parties have settled their dispute on the basis of compromise deed dated 12.07.2024. The compromise deed dated 12.07.2024 has been verified by the court concerned and the verification report is on record. A certified copy of the said compromise deed has been filed as Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit. On being arrived at mutual consent, both the parties have come to the terms and decided to settled the case on the basis of compromise and therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending the present case be finally decided. It is further submitted that the matter is private in nature and both the parties are family members and there is dispute with regard to ancestral property. 4.
Legal Reasoning
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6677 of 2024, the parties did not not appear before the court concerned for verification. 2 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that as the applicants have already arrived at amicable settlement on 12.07.2024, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant. 6. Heard Sri A.K.S.Bais, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chaudhary Dil Nishad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ashwani Kumar Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 01.02.2021 has been lodged against the applicant and six other named and one unknown person by the opposite party no. 2, under Sections 420, 467, 466., 471, 477, 120-B I.P.C. stating that the first informant’s grandfather, who died on 17.05.2014, never executed any registered or unregistered Will deed to anybody. After his death Smt. Aruna Devi, wife of Shyam Sunder Singh and son late Shyam Singh have become owner of house and Plot No. 14 measuring 778.80 square meter situated at Imperial Sahkari Awas Vikas, Saharanpur and also bank balance. After the death of father of the first informant, the first informant Shyam Sunder Das also died on 01.02.2010, who was residing in Ghaziabad District along with his mother and the accused persons with the view to grab the share of the first informant prepared a forged Power of Attorney and agreement was got registered on 27.08.2014 at registry office Saharanpur. The first informant made approach in the office of the authority concerned for cancellation of the forged documents. 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.." 3 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 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 4 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. 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." 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 of Case No. 11559 of 2023 ( State vs. Ajeet Pratap Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur 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. 5 14. The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today. Order Date :- 30.9.2024 MAA/-
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that six other persons and the first informant settled their dispute earlier and their case is quashed. It is further submitted that in pursuance of earlier order dated 19.04.2024 passed