I.P.C. (State v. Sudheer Singh) including the charge sheet dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190647 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41671 of 2024 Applicant :- Sudheer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh 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 and perused the record on board. None is present for the opposite party no.2. 2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding in Case Crime No.0223 of 2017 under Sections 506, 507 I.P.C. (State Versus Sudheer Singh) including the charge sheet dated 11.09.2017 and cognizance order dated 20.06.2018 as well as summoning order dated 30.08.2018, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhjpur.
Legal Reasoning
3. During the pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No. 17756 of 2024 (Sudheer Singh Versus State of U.P. and another) has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order dated 08.08.2024 is quoted herein below:
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Sudheer Singh with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 11.09.2017 in Case Crime No. 0223 of 2017, under Sections 506, 507 I.P.C. (State Vs. Sudheer Singh) including the cognizance order dated 20.06.2018 as well as summoning order dated 30.08.2018, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur and with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed, during the pendency of the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter is bailable in nature. It is submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the matter is compoundable in nature, the applicant should be granted liberty to approach the court concerned at the first instance and this Court as has been approached directly may direct appropriate orders for the court concerned to consider the same. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant then submits that he should be permitted to agitate the issue of compromise before the court concerned since the matter is compoundable in nature. 6. As prayed, the applicant may approach the court concerned by filing his alleged compromise within two weeks on which the court concerned is expected to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within 30 days.
Decision
7. The petition stands disposed of. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Gorakhpur has verified the compromise vide its order dated 10.09.2024. In the light of aforesaid verification order dated 10.09.2024, the applicant has preferred the instant application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceeding. The order dated 10.09.2024 has been endorsed at the rear side of first page of the compromise. Certified copy of the compromise along with order dated 10.09.2024 has been filed as (Annexure No-2) to this application. Learned Chief Judicial, Magistrate, in the light of the compromise verified order dated 10.09.2024, has made communication to the Registrar General of this Court for placing the report regarding verification of the compromise before the Court. Certified copy of the communication dated 10.09.2024 is filed as (Annexure-3) to this application. 5. Perusal of the order dated 10.09.2024 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. 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. In their presence compromise has been verified. For ready reference order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure No.2) and report dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure No.3) are quoted herein below, respectively:- 10.9.2024 प्रस्ततुत। ममा० उच्च न्यमायमालय कके Application U/s 482 No. 17756/2024 कके आदकेश ददनमानाँक 08.08.2024 कके क्रम मम आदकेश ककी प्रममादणित प्रदत ददनमानाँदकत 12.8.2024 कके सत्र मम आज ददनमानाँक 10.9.2024 कके दमाखखिल दकयमा गयमा। उक्त आदकेश कके क्रम मम सतुलहनमाममा आज दमाखखिल दकयमा गयमा। वमाददी पपंकज गगोयल कके हस्तमाक्षर कगो उनकके दवदमान अखधिवक्तमा शदी दवजय खसपंह दमारमा प्रममादणित दकयमा गयमा तथमा अदभियतुक्त सतुधिदीर खसपंह कमा हस्तमाक्षर दवदमान अखधिवक्तमा शदी अदभिषकेक शतुक्लमा दमारमा प्रममादणित दकयमा गयमा। पक्षकमारगणि मय अखधिवक्तमा उपसस्थत हहै। सतुलहनमाममा दमाखखिल दकयमा गयमा व उनकके हस्तमाक्षर कगो प्रममादणित दकयमा गयमा। उभियपक्ष दमारमा यह कथन दकयमा गयमा दक सतुलहनमाममा दबिनमा दकसदी दबिमाव कके अपनदी स्वतपंत्र इच्छमा सके दमाखखिल दकयमा गयमा हहै। प्रकेषक, मतुखय न्यमादयक मखजस्टट केट गगोरखिपतुर। सकेवमा मम, महमादनबिन्धिक ममाननदीय उच्च न्यमायमालय इलमाहमाबिमाद। दमारमार- शदीममानन जनपद न्यमायमाधिदीश, कके अनतुपमालन कके समबिन्धि मम। सतुधिदीर खसपंह बिनमाम उ०प्र० रमाजय गगोरखिपतुर। दवषयर- Application U/S 482 No-17756/2024, एवपं अन्य मम पमाररत आदकेश ददनमापंक- 08.08.2024 महगोदय, ससमममान दनवकेदन हहै दक ममाननदीय उच्च न्यमायमालय, सपंखयमा- 2301475/2018, भिमा०दपं०सपं० थमानमा रमाजघमाट, जनपद- न्यमायमालय मम सतुलहनमाममा प्रस्ततुत करनके कके सतयमापन करनके कके खलए दनदरदशत दकयमा गयमा हहै। वमाददी मतुकदममा पपंकज गगोयल तथमा अदभियतुक्त सतुधिदीर खसपंह दमारमा ददनमापंक-10.09.2024 कगो सतुलहनमाममा प्रस्ततुत दकयमा गयमा हहै। वमाददी मतुकदममा/ पदीदडत तथमा अदभियतुक्त दमारमा प्रस्ततुत सतुलहनमाममा कगो ददनमापंक-10.09.2024 इलमाहमाबिमाद कके उपरगोक्त आदकेश कके दमारमा अन्तरगत धिमारमा 506,507 मम पक्षकमारर कगो खलए और समबिपंखधित न्यमायमालय कगो सतुलहनमाममा कके कगो पक्षकमारर ककी उपसस्थदत मम सतयमादपत दकयमा गयमा। गगोरखिपतुर रमाजय बिनमाम सतुधिदीर खसपंह, अपरमाधि सपंखयमा-223/2017, अतर शदीममानन जदी सके दनवकेदन हहै दक पक्षकमारर दमारमा सतुलहनमाममा सतयमादपत करनके ककी ररपगोटर ममाननदीय उच्च न्यमायमालय, इलमाहमाबिमाद कके समक्ष प्रस्ततुत करनके ककी कक पमा करम। समादर। ददनमापंकर-10.09.2024 भिवददीय, ह० अप० सतवदष शदीवमास्तव) ( मतुखय न्यमादयक मखजस्टट केट गगोरखिपतुर। सपंलगकर- सतुलहनमाममा व सतयमादपत प्रदत। 6. 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. 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. 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. 10. 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. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 4.12.2024 T.S.