State of U.P v. Suleman and Others) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33033 of 2024 Applicant :- Suleman And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kashyap, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2. 3. Perused the record. 4. Applicants-Suleman And Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
Legal Reasoning
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 482 of 2021 (State of U.P. Versus Suleman and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 472 of 2020, Under Section 323, 324, 504, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Hayatnagar, District- Sambhal pending before Judge Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Sambhal at Chandausi in view of compromise dated 18.01.2024 executed by both the parties and verified by the learned Trial Court on 20.05.2024. learned Civil the It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of entire Criminal Case No. 482 of 2021 (State of U.P. Versus Suleman and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 472 of 2020, Under Section 323, 324, 504, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Sambhal at Chandausi in view of compromise dated 18.01.2024 executed by both the parties and verified by the learned Trial Court on 20.05.2024, during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or to pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 5. Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the said compromise was reduced to writing by way of compromise deed. Copy of the same which is on record at page 73 of the paper book.
Decision
6. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, applicants approached this Court by means of an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5631of 2024 (Suleman and 3 Others Vs. State Of U.P. and 3 Others ). The said application was disposed of finally, vide order dated 10.05.2024. For ready reference, the order dated 13.05.2024 is reproduced herein below:- "1. Short counter affidavit along with vakalatnama, filed by Sri P.K. Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri P.K. Kashyap, counsel for the opposite party no.2. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 482 of 2021 as well as charge-sheet no. 03 of 2021 dated 4.1.2021 (State of U.P. vs. Suleman and others) and cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.8.2021 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sambhal at Chandausi in Case Crime No. 472 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308, 325 I.P.C., P.S. Hayatnagar, District Sambhal, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil and private in nature. In the alleged incident, three persons including the opposite party no.2 received injuries. The injuries were not found serious in nature. Further during the pendency of proceedings the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 18.1.2024 has been annexed as Annexure 6 to this affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party nos.2 to 4 do not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the trial court and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. 5. Counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. 6. Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the trial court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the trial court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 7. In view of above, the parties including the injured persons are directed to appear before the trial court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three 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 the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the trial court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not. 8. 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 applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 9. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the trial court, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 7. In compliance of above order dated 13.05.2024, Court below, vide order dated 20.05.2024, verified the compromise entered into by the parties. 8. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not against state. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, referred to above, parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of above settlement, arrived at between the parties, compromise deed was filed before Court below, which has been verified by Court below. As such, the compromise entered into by the parties has been acted upon. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction of applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, are not only remote but also bleak. As such, the continuation of criminal prosecution of applicants will only be a futile exercise. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for applicants thus submits that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. He, therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party- 1 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kashyap, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants. They submit that once the first informant-opposite party-2 has himself entered into a compromise with accused-applicants, which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below, they cannot have any grievance, in case, the present application is decided by this Court, in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties. 10. Be that as it may, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 Nikhil iii. Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 466 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions 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 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; 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 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; 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 in so far 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 cause 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 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." Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation. 19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." 11. In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra), the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court has further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the aforementioned report. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and in view of above and the observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, this Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants is remote and bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 14. It is, accordingly, allowed. 15. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 482 of 2021 (State of U.P. Versus Suleman and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 472 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Hayatnagar, District- Sambhal now pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Sambhal at Chandausi are, hereby, quashed. Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Imtiyaz