High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188906 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41134 of 2024 Applicant :- Satya Kant Shukla Alias Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Sri Lok Nath Shukla and Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, learned Advocates have filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no.2, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print the names of aforesaid counsel as counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. 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.9582 of 2016 (State vs. Satya Kant Shukla @ Suraj) arising out of case crime no.489 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 507 and 452 I.P.C., P.S. Meja, District Allahabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M. 10 Allahabad. 4. During pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure- 5), has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. While passing the order dated 05.09.2024 in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.27425 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the applicant to approach again before this Court to get the criminal proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise verification order. For ready reference, order dated 05.09.2024 is quoted herein below :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 , learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 9582 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 489 of 2016, under Sections 323/ 504/506/507/452 I.P.C., Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad in Charge Sheet No. 32 of 2016, dated 26.01.2016 and taken cognizance and issued summons to the applicant vide order dated 25.10.2016, on the basis of compromised dated 22.07.2022 between the parties, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., 10, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He next added that under some misunderstanding, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and thereafter, the parties have amicably compromised their dispute. The compromise deed has been reduced in writing on 22.7.2022, which has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the instant application. He next added that now there is no grievance in between the parties with each other and the criminal proceedings against the applicant are the futile exercise as there is no fate of trial and that is amount to harassment of the applicant and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through a compromise deed and there is no further grievance of the opposite parties against the present applicant and the criminal proceedings against the applicant may be dropped. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid. 6. Now whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Decision
7. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 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 applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 9. For a period of two months, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 9582 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 489 of 2016, under Sections 323/ 504/506/507/452 I.P.C., Police Station-Meja, District- Allahabad, shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned. 10. The trial Court is directed to examine the fact that whether all the parties against whom the chargesheet was filed, the party in the compromise and in this respect, it shall also sent a report along with the verification order." 5. In pursuance of the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by this Court, learned A.C.J.M. Allahabad has verified the compromise in presence of both the parties vide its order dated 12.09.2024. Certified copy of the order dated 12.09.2024 has been filed as Annexure-4. Apart from that certified copy ordersheet has also been filed as Annexure-2. The concerned court has observed that both the parties have been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise has been spelled out to the parties in the open court, who have admitted the factum of compensation and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant 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 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 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 settlement/agreement inked between the parties, 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 :- 2.12.2024 Asha