State v. Parvez Malik and Others) arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197741 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43284 of 2024 Applicant :- Parvez Malik And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra 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 has appeared for opposite party no.2. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and order proposed to be passed herein under, this Court proceeds to decide the instant application finally, without putting notice to the contesting opposite party no.2 with a liberty that in case facts and details, as averred in the instant application is found incorrect, he may move a recall application against the order of the date.
Legal Reasoning
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet no. 850 of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 and cognizance order dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 10036 of 2024 (Computer Case No. 30952 of 2024) (State Vs. Parvez Malik and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0067 of 2023, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 365 of I.P.C. and Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Moradabad. 4. It is submitted that present applicants have initially filed an Application U/S 482 No. 35849 of 2024 (Parvez Malik and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise took place between the parties. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 23.10.2024, 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 a liberty to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing the criminal proceeding on the basis of verification of compromise. For ready reference, order dated 23.10.2024 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
Legal Reasoning
"1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants, namely, Parvez Malik, Mohd. Mayur and Gulzar with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 850 of 2023 dated 26.12.2023, cognizance order dated 14.08.2024 and proceedings of Case No. 10036 of 2024 (Computer Case No. 30952 of 2024) (State vs. Parvez Malik and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0067 of 2023, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 365 I.P.C. and Section 66 I.T. Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. 3-It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in this case, opposite party no. 2-Rishi Gupta lodged a first information report on 24.01.2023 for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 66 I.T. Act against the applicants, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 26.12.2023, on which the learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 14.08.2024. Thereafter the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a compromise application dated 28.08.2024 has been filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad where criminal proceeding against the applicants is pending. Said compromise application has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to this application. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 4-Accordingly, the concerned Court below is directed that if any such compromise has already been 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. 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 applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 5-Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
6-With the aforesaid directions, the instant application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of." 5. In pursuance of the order dated 23.10.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad has passed compromise verification order dated 29.11.2024 which has been endorsed at the rear side of the first page of the compromise. Certified copies of the compromise application dated 28.08.2024 along with the endorsement of order dated 29.11.2024 as well as copies of the affidavit of Rishu Gupta (first informant) and Parvez Malik (applicant no.1 herein) are collectively filed as Annexure no. 5 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. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. For ready reference order dated 29.11.2024 is quoted herein below: ददनननक " - 29.11.2024 आज दद० 29.11.2024 हहआ। वनदद ररषस गसपन कक दशननखत एवन इसकक हसतनकर कन पमनणन उनकक एएडवककक ट दनरन दकयन गयन तथन दवपकदगण/ अदभयसकगण परवकज मधलक, उनकक हसतनकर कन पमनणन उनकक कक यह ससलहननमन पककनरर कक मधय दनषपनददत हककर नयनयनलय कक समक पकश दवदनन अधधवकन शद मकअजजम खनन मक० मययर व गसलजनर कक दशननखत एवन दवदनन अधधवकन शद हरकनद कस मनर एएडवककक ट दनरन दकयन गयन। तदनससनर यह ससलहननमन पककनरर कक सवतनत सहमदत सक खसलक नयनयनलय मम सतयनदपत दकयन गयन।" 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 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. 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 :- 17.12.2024 Sumit K.