Merajuddin v. Banne & Others) u
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191896 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41848 of 2024 Applicant :- Anwar Alias Anwar Ali And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Faiz 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. None is present for opposite party no.2. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 260 of 2019 (Merajuddin Vs. Banne & Others) u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station- Anoopshaher, District- Bulandshahar.
Legal Reasoning
3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. Accordingly, present applicants have moved an Application U/S 482 No. 9908 of 2024 for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 07.08.2024, has disposed of the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. relegating 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 07.08.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
Legal Reasoning
"1. Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for applicants is not present. Sri Mohd. Faiz, Advocate appeared and submits that he is holding brief of Sri Irshad Ahmad, Advocate. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahar, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 260 of 2019 (Merajuddin vs. Banee and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that parties have entered into compromise. 4. Court takes note of above submission and this application is disposed of with liberty to parties to appear before Trial Court concerned and thereafter compromise may be verified in accordance with law. Subsequently, applicants will have liberty to approach this Court." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by this Court, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar has passed compromise verification order dated 28.08.2024 which has been endorsed at the rear side of first page of the compromise. Certified copy of the compromise application along with endorsement order dated 28.08.2024 is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to the instant application. Learned court concerned has observed 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 in open court. Subsequently, aforesaid order dated 28.08.2024 has been corrected by a subsequent order dated 10.09.2024 only with respect to the complaint case number. Certified copy of the correction order dated 10.09.2024 is filed as well as Annexure no.5. For ready reference, compromise verification order dated 28.08.2024 and corrected order dated 10.09.2024 are quoted herein below: "28.08.2024 पततवलल पपश हहआ। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश ददनतनक 07-08-24 पतररनत पत सन०-9908/2024 कर अवललकन दकयत गयत। मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश कप अननपतलन मम समझझततनतमत दतखखल हहआ। वतदल मपरतजनदलन नयतयतलय उपससरत। खजनकक दशनतहत दवदतन अखधवकत शल जय पकतश शमतर दतरत कक गयल। अदभयनकगण बनप, अकरम, अनवर, व कलल नयतयलय उपससरत खजनकक दशनतहत दवदतन अखधवकत शल दहमतनशन बनसल दतरत कक गयल। उभय पकल दतरत बततयत गयत दक वप सवपकतपपवरक दबनत दकसल दबतव मम इस सनलहनतमत सवलकतर कर रहप हह। आज नयतयतलय कप समक उभय पक उपससरत आयप। मनझ पलठतसलन अखरकतरल दतरत खनलप नयतयतलय मम पकक कप बयतन मतत मपल वतद 260/16 मम तसदलक दकयत गयत। दन०अ० ह०अ० 28.08.2024 अपर मनखय नयतदयक मखजसटट पट अनपपशहर, बनलनदशहर Corrected order dated 10.09.2024-: नयतयतलय अपर मनखय नयतदयक मखजसटट पररवतद सनखयत 260 पट, अनपपशहर, बनलनदशहर सनन 2019 ममरतजनदलन.............. बनतम................... बनप व अनय। 10.09.2024 पततवलल दझरतन पपशल पपश हहई। पररवतदल दतरत इस आशय कत पतररनत पत पसतनत दकयत गयत हम दक सनन 2015 नयतयतलय दतरत समझझतत दशनतखत मम सहवन पररवतद सनखयत 260 अनदकत दकयत गयत हम। दनयमतननसतर सहल सनन 2015 कप सरतन पर 260 दकयत जतनत आवशयक हम। कप सरतन पर 2019 सनन 2019 सननत पततवलल कत अवललकन दकयत। समबसनधत खलदपक कक आखयत आहहत कक गयल। समबसनधत खलदपक दतरत इस आशय कक आखयत पसतनत कक तरत मतननलय उचच नयतयतलय कप आदपश अनदकत हम, जबदक गयल दक समबसनधत पततवलल पर पररवतद सनखयत 260 अनतगरत धतरत 482 समबसनधत तसदलक मम सनखयत 260 मम पततवलल सनखयत 260 सनखयत 9908 अनदकत हल गयत हम। सनन 2024 सनन 2019 सनन 2019 सनन 2015 उक कप आललक मम पररवतद पत कत अवललकन दकयत गयत। खजसमम पररवतद सनखयत 260 सनन 2019 ददनतनदकत 07.08.2024 हम। खलदपक कक आखयतननसतर समबसनधत पततवलल पर पररवतद सनखयत 260 नयतयतलय कप आदपश अनतगरत धतरत 482 सनखयत 260 सनखयत 9908 सनन 2019 अनदकत तरत मतननलय उचच भल पररवतद सनन 2024 सनन 2019 अनदकत हम। उपरलक समसत तथयक कप अवललकन सप सपष पतलत हलतत हम दक समझझतत तसदलक ददनतनक कतगज सनखयत पररवतद सनखयत पर सहवन तनदट पररवतद सनखयत 2019 27A/2 सनन 260 अनदकत हल गयत 2015 260 सनन हम। , 28.08.2024 जबदक वतसतदवक अतत समबसनधत खलदपक कल आदपदशत दकयत जततत हम दक पररवतद सनखयत 260 सनन 2015 कल पररवतद सनखयत 260 सनन 2019 सनशलखधत करनत सनदनसशचत करम। पततवलल दनयत दतखर कल पपश हल।" 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 :- 6.12.2024 Sumit K.