Mohan Lal v. Babu Lal & Others) in Criminal Revision No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194573 Court No. - 76
Legal Reasoning
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42840 of 2024 Applicant :- Bani Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned Advocate, has filed short counter affidavit and memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly and print his name 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 proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.1557 of 2024 (Mohan Lal vs. Babu Lal & Others) in Criminal Revision No.270 of 2000 (Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sainya, District Agra. 4. 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. On the basis of compromise, the accused (Bani Singh & Others) have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2103 of 2011. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2024, has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified and granted liberty to file fresh application along with compromise verification order to get the proceeding quashed. For ready reference, order dated 06.09.2024 is quoted herein below :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State an perused the record. This writ petition has been filed with prayer to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Agra, in Criminal Revision No.270 of 2009 (Bani Singh vs. State of U.P. & others). It is submitted by leaned counsel for the petitioner that in this case complainant/opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed in the Complaint Case No.270 of 2009 pending between the parties since parties have entered into compromise as they have settled their dispute amicably. Therefore, request to direct the parties to file compromise before the learned court which is to be verified it and then learned trial court is directed to quash the entire proceedings of the case in terms of compromise between the parties. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it is expedient to direct the parties to appear before the learned trial court and to file compromise within a period of 30 days which is to be verified by Special Court and then the parties may file certified copy of the verified compromise before this Court in fresh application. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally." 5. In pursuance of the order dated 06.09.2024, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, has passed compromise verification order dated 04.10.2024. Learned court concerned in its order dated 04.10.2024 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, in the open court, within the consent of the parties, compromise has been verified. Certified copy of the order dated 04.10.2024 is annexed as Annexure-10. Order dated 04.10.2024 is quoted herein below :- ददनननक " 04.10.2024 बनल लसनह, कनरनरलर ललदपक दनरन पतनवलल पसततत कक गरल। वनदल मतकदमन ममहनलनल तथन अदभरतकगण थनन लसनह, दनरनजन लसनह व भभरन अपनन अपनन दवदनन अलधवकन कन सनथ उपससथत हह। दमनम पकक कक ओर सन दकदमनल पककणर ररट रनदचकन सनखरन- 2103/2011 बनल लसनह व अनर बननम उतर पदनश रनजर व अनर मम मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर दनरन पनररत आदनश, कक सतर पदतललदप पसततत कक गरल गरल हह। जनपद आगरन कक आखरन अनतसनर मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर कक वनबसनइट पर उपलबध हह। दमनम पकक कक ओर सन मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर कन उक आदनश कन ददनननदकत 04.10.2024 पसततत दकरन गरन तथन मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर कम उक आदनश कन पकनश मम उसन सतरनदपत करनन कक रनचनन कक गरल हह। उक आदनश कन परभटर अनतभनग, ददनननदकत 06.09.2024 अनतपनलन मम रनजलननमन मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर दनरन पनररत उक आदनश कन अवलमकन सन रह दवददत हमतन ललए आदनदशत दकरन गरन हह, हह दक दमनम पकक कम इस नरनरनलर मम आदनश कक दतलथ सन 30 ददन कन भलतर रनजलननमन दनलखल करनन कन लजसन दवचनरण नरनरनलर दनरन सतरनदपत करनन कन भल आदनश ददरन गरन हह। इस आदनश कन सनथ उक रनदचकन दनसतनररत कर दल गरल हह तथन उक आदनश मम रह भल आदनश दकरन गरन हह दक सतलहननमन सतरनदपत हमनन कन बनद पककनर उसकक पमनदणत पदत लनकर नरन पनथरननपत मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर मम पसततत कर सकतन हह। मनननलर उचच नरनरनलर दनरन पनररत उक आदनश कन अनतपनलन मम पसततत सतलहननमन कम दमनम पकक कम पढकर सतननरन व समझनरन गरन। वनदल मतकदमन ममहनलनल कन हसतनकर फमटम व पहचनन कक उनकन अलधवकन शल लजतननद लसनह चचहनन दनरन तथन अदभरतकगण थनन लसनह, फमटम व पहचनन कक उनकन अलधवकन शल महनश बघनल दनरन दशननखत कक गरल। सतलहननमम मम अनदकत तथरक सन उभर पककनरगण सहमत हह। अतत सतलहननमन खतलन नरनरनलर मम दनरमननतसनर सतरनदपत दकरन गरन। पतनवलल वनसतन अदगम आदनश पभवर दनरत दतलथ ददनननक 12.12.2024 दनरनजन लसनह व भभरन कन हसतनकर, बनल लसनह, कम पनश हम। ( एस०टल० एकट) रनजननद पसनद) अपर सत नरनरनधलश- ददतलर/ दवशनष नरनरनधलश (एस०सल०/ आगरन।" 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 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 burried 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 :- 12.12.2024 VR