Others v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187770 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38641 of 2024 Applicant :- Virendra Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared for opposite party no.2.
Legal Reasoning
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 4699 of 2024 (State Vs. Virendra Yadav and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0332 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District- Chitrakoot. 3. During pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Previously, an Application U/S 482 No. 31950 of 2024 (Virendra Yadav and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) was filed for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 31950 of 2024 (Annexure No.1), has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified with liberty to the applicants to approach this Court again to get the criminal proceeding quashed on the basis of compromise. For ready reference, order date 27.09.2024 is quoted herein below:
Legal Reasoning
"1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharmal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 4699 of 2024 (State Vs. Virendra Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0332 of 2024, under sections 323, 504, 506, 308, Police Station-Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District-Chitrakoot on the ground of compromise between the parties. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and written compromise dated 31.8.2024 was also entered into between the parties. Copy of the same has been annexed at page 56 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is further submitted that the original deed of compromise has already been filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot and request has been made that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of aforesaid compromise.
Decision
4. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with direction to the court concerned to verify the compromise deed dated 31.08.2024 after summoning the parties and after verification of the aforesaid compromise, the court below will provide certified copy of the verified compromise to the parties. The aforesaid exercise of verification shall be completed within a period of three months. 5. For a period of three months or till verification of the compromise, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 6. It is further provided that the parties are at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceeding on the basis of verified copy of compromise." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chitrakoot has passed a compromise verification order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure no.8) with an observation 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. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, is quoted herein below: " 16.10.2024 नययययलय ममखय नययययक मजजसटट टट यचतकक ट। उ०प०रयजय चनयम ववरटनद ययदव आयद ममकदमय मम०-4699/2024 अपरयध सम0-332/2024 धयरय-323,504,506,308 भय.दम.सम. धयनय-कक, जजलय यचतकक ट अयभयमकगण ववरटनद ययदव, लयलतय ययदव, मयननवय उचच नययययलय इलयहयबयद दयरय यययचकय अनतगरत धयरय 482 सम०-31950 आवटदकगण/ पयथरनयन पत, ययदव च तवन अनय बनयम उ०प०रयजय मम पयररत आदटश यदनयमयकत 27.09.2024 पसतमत यकयय गयय हह। दशरथ ययदव व पमकज ययदव कक ओर मम स ववरटनद कक पमययणत पपन कट सयथ मयननवय उचच नययययलय इलयहयबयद दयरय उक यययचकय मम पयररत आदटश यदनयमयकत 27.09.2024 कट दयरय अवर नययययलय कक यनदरयशत यकयय गयय हह यक उभय पकक कक बमलयकर यदनयमक 31.08.2024 कट समझझतय यवलटख कय सतययपन करट और सतययपन कट पशचयत पककयरक कक सतयययपत समदयत कक पयत पयपण करयव एवम सतययपन कक कययरवयहव तवन मयह कट अनदर कक जयए। आवटदकगण/ 31.08.2024 27.09.2024 यकयय जयनय हह। अयभयमकगण कक ओर सट पतयवलव मम उभय पकक कक ओर सट समझझतय यदनयमयकत पत दयजखल यकयय गयय हह। मयननवय उचच नययययलय कट उक आदटश यदनयमयकत पत यदनयमयकत 31.08.2024 कक उपससथयत मम सतयययपत मय शपथ- कट अनमपयलन मम समझझतय पयथरनय- मयमलय उपरकक मम पककयरक कट दयरय पयथरनय पत यदनयमयकत 31.08.2024 पसतमत कर मयमलट कय असनतम रप सट यनसतयररत यकयट जयनट कक पयथरनय कक गयव। उपरकक नयमलट मम वयदव ममकदमय रयजटनद पसयद गमपय एवम चकटयहल यशवजव व रयजक गमपय नययययलय मम उपससथत हह। उनकट फकटक व यनशयनव अमगकठय हसतयकर कय उनकट यवदयन अजधवकय शव यशववरण ययदव रजज०नम० UP-05218/06 दयरय कक गयव। अयभयमकगण वयरनद ययदव, लयलतय ययदव, पमकज ययदव मय यवदयन अजधवकय उपससथत । अयभयमकगण क फयटय व यनशयनव अगकटय कय उनकट दयरय पमययणत यकयय गयय। यवदयन अजधवकय शव कमलटश पसयद, रजज० नम०-UP-4835/2001 दशरण ययदव, मससतषक कट हह, उभयपक कक समलहनयमय कक शतरम कक पढकर समनययय गयय एवम समझययय गयय। पककयर सवसथय उनकय ककई आपरयजधक इयतहयस भव अयभयकजन कट दयरय पसतमत नहह यकयय गयय और वयसक हह, पककयर अपरयध समन करनट कट जलयट अनयथय सकम हह। समलह कक शतक कक पमनन पढकर पककयरक कक समनययय गयय एवम समझययय गयय। उभय पक नट अपनट नययययलय कट समक समलह कक बयत सववकयर कक और उसकट अनमशरण मम नययययलय कट अजधवकयओम कट समक, समक समलहनयमय दयजखल यकयय एवम जजसकक नययययलय दयरय तसदवक यकयय गयय। ममखय नययययक मजजसटट टट, यचतकक ट " 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 :- 29.11.2024 Sumit K.