State v. Ansar, arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186244 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38252 of 2024 Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Yadav,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record on board.
Legal Reasoning
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 25.07.2024 and charge sheet dated 23.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 234 of 2024 (State Vs. Ansar Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh. 3. Having been aggrieved with the occurrence of offence dated 13.09.2017, opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0209 dated 14.09.2017. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 28.08.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 10060 of 2024 (Annexure No.5), has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified with liberty to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. For ready reference, order date 28.05.2024 is quoted herein below:
Legal Reasoning
"1.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1, and Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 26, Azamgarh in Criminal Case No. 234 of 2024, State v. Ansar, arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Gambhirpur District Azamgarh as well as charge-sheet dated 23.12.2017, cognizance order dated 06.03.2018 passed in the said case and also the entire proceedings of the said case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 28.10.2020 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 5. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 are directed to appear before the court concerned along with an application for verification of compromise deed so filed as well as a 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 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 today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not. 7. 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. 8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. 26, Azamgarh has submitted compromise verification report dated 25.07.2024 appended with the copy of compromise and compromise verification order dated 25.07.2024 (filed as Annexure no.6) which is endorsed at the rear side of second page of the compromise dated 12.07.2024. It evince from the order dated 25.07.2024 that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. 5. 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 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. 6. 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 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." 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 27.11.2024 Sumit K.