State of U.P v. Jeet Lal Yadav & Others) under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176162 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36514 of 2024 Applicant :- Jeet Lal Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record on Board. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant matter finally without putting notice to respondent no.2, granting liberty to file a recall application, in case any fact or detail as mentioned in the instant application are found incorrect. 3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1805 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.387 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Jeet Lal Yadav & Others) under Section 354Kha, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Utraon, District Prayagraj pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.8, Allahabad. 4. Respondent no.2-Lalti Devi has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.0387 dated 10.10.2020 levelling allegations of molestation and criminal intimidation against the present applicants showing the occurrence of offence dated 10.10.2020 at about 5:00 a.m. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified and permitted the applicants to approach this Court again after verification of the compromise. For ready reference order dated 27.09.2024 is quoted herein below :- 1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 08.01.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1805 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.387 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Jeet Lal Yadav and others), under Sections-354Kha, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Utraon, District-Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Allahabad. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a written compromise dated 31.08.2024 was also entered into between the parties and copy of the same has already been filed before the court of ACJM, Court No.8, Allahabad and request is made that on the basis of this compromise, proceeding may be quashed. However, from the perusal of the compromise annexed at page nos.59 and 60 of the paper book, it is found that it is yet to be verified by the court. 4. The present application is disposed of with a direction to the ACJM, Court No.8, Allahabad to verify the aforesaid compromise after summoning the parties and after verification of the aforesaid compromise, court below will permit the parties to obtain certified copy of the same. 5. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded by the court below, within a period of three months from the date of receiving the copy of this order. 6. It is further provided that for a period of three months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 7. It is further provided that applicants are at liberty to file fresh application u/s 482, if required to quash the impugned proceeding on the basis of verified compromise." 5. In pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2024, both the parties have appeared before the court below to get their compromise verified. Learned A.C.J.M. has passed the compromise verification order dated 10.10.2024 in presence of all the parties except one of the accused namely Sant Lal Yadav. Compromise verification order has been endorsed at the rear side of the compromise application. Separate order-sheet dated 10.10.2024 has been maintained as well. Order dated 10.10.2024 endorsed at the rear side of the compromise and the order dated 10.10.2024 on the order-sheet are quoted herein below :- "1. Called out. Complainant Lalti Devi and her counsel Sri Rajesh and accused Chhabinath Yadav, Jeet Lal and their counsel Asha Ram Yadav are present in court personally. One accused Sant Lal is not personally present but his counsel is present. As it is told that Sant lal is unable to appear because he has undergone through stone operation. The compromised application been read over to the parties and accordingly verified. आज पपश हहए। लललतत दपवत व जतत ललल, 2. हसतलकर तसदतक बकयल गयल व ससत ललल दलरल अधधवकल उपससथत व तसदतक बकए गए" छबबनलथ कल अधधवकल, फफटफ, आई. डत, व 6. Perusal of compromise verification order dated 10.10.2024 reveals that the complainant (respondent no.2) was present through her counsel Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, applicants no.1 and 3 were present as well along with their counsel Shri Asha Ram Yadav, however, applicant no.2-Sant Lal Yadav was not present owing to medical surgery. Perusal of the certified copy of the compromise application, supported by affidavit of respondent no.1, reveals that all the three accused and the first informant have put their signatures at the bottom of the said application and their signatures have been identified by their counsel. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that signature of Sant Lal Yadav, which has been endorsed at the bottom of compromise and identified by his counsel, has been disputed by any person. Shri Asha Ram Yadav, counsel for Sant Lal Yadav has admitted his signature and shown inability of his presence in the court on the date of verification of the compromise dated 10.10.2024. 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 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 applicant 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, 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 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 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." 9. 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. 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 :- 11.11.2024 VR