High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153194 Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30091 of 2024 Applicant :- Kapoor Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avadh Raj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 25.10.2016 and summoning order dated 25.11.2016, of S. T. No.
Legal Reasoning
667 of 2018, (State Vs. Kapoor Singh and others), arising out of case crime no. 139 of 2016, under Sections 323, 308/34 IPC, P.S Shamshabad, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Agra, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Earlier also, the applicants had approached this Court by means of filing Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15173 of 2024 for the
Decision
same relief, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.5.2024 directing the parties to appear before the Court below along with certified copy of the order dated 15.5.2024. It was further directed that the trial Court may fix a date for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order to that effect within next four weeks. The Court has also given liberty to file fresh application under Section 482 CrPC at that stage for the relief sought herein. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15.5.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15173 of 2024 trial Court has verified the compromise vide order dated 6.7.2024, which is annexed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application filed under Section 482 CrPC. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties have come to terms and settled their dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:- (i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others (2008) 16 SCC 1 (iv) Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) (v) State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 (vi) State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 (vii)Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 (viii) Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834. 6. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. 7. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:- i. "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 recognizes 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 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; 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 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 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 8. With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and implication of the offences which are more particularly in private dispute and differences, the Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed. 9. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 17.9.2024 HR