High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172197 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33811 of 2024 Applicant :- Radha Kishun And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sarfaraz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Shri Gaurav Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 which is taken on record. 2. Office is directed to print the name of Shri Gaurav Kumar Singh as counsel for opposite party. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. 4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 25.07.2013 and charge- sheet dated 11.07.2013 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.483(A)/2013 (State v. Jaikishun and others) and S.T. No.280 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 of IPC, Police Station- Sevrahi, District- Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kushi Nagar place Padrauna, on the basis of compromise dated 20.02.2024. 5. During pendency of the proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. To quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of the compromise, applicants have filed an application under Section 482 CrPC No.17521/2023. Aforesaid application has finally been decided by order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Court with a direction that parties may get their compromise verified from the court concerned. While deciding the matter, this Court has accorded liberty to the applicants to approach before this Court again for quashing the criminal proceedings, in case, compromise is verified. For ready reference, order dated 11.05.2023 is quoted herein below :- "1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA. 2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 11.7.2013 as well as the order dated 11.5.2022 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.280 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.483(A) of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 504 IPC, Police Station Sevrahi, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of Additional and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kushinagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their dispute outside the Court. The offenes are of minor in nature. The petitioners and opposites parties are neighbours and because of some minor dispute, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. He further submits that the compromise, which was entered into between the parties, was filed before the court cornered and a prayer was made to quash the proceedings. However, vide impugned order, the trial court has rejected the application as some of the offences against the petitioners are not compoundable. 4. Considering the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the approach of the learned trial court is incorrect inasmuch as the trial court has no power to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise, if the offences are not compoundable. In view thereof, I find no substance in the present petition. 5. Thus, the present petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, if the petitioners and opposite parties arrived at a compromise in future, they may approach this Court again by filing an appropriate application for quashing the proceedings, on which this Court decide whether the case against the petitioners is one, which can be quashed on the ground of compromise." 6. In pursuance of the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, both the parties have filed their compromise application before the court below. ADJ, Court No.6, Kushinagar, at Padrauna has passed the compromise verification order dated 26.02.2024. Certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2024 is appended with this application (Page Nos.81 to 83). As per order dated 26.02.2024, both the parties were personally present before the court and filed compromise dated 20.02.2024 (Paper No.84-Ka). Their signatures have been verified by their respective counsel. Accused, first informant and the victim have made their statements before the court below. They categorically stated that they entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. They expressed their desire not to pursue the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned. 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 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 grudge between them against each other. To quash the 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, the 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." 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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. 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. 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. 11. 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. 12. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Rama Kant