High Court
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State-respondents. Shri Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 in Case Crime No.1020/2011 filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No.4 to this application along with its consequential orders and entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012 pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, in the interest of justice." It has been informed that the parties have entered into a compromise. It is further urged that earlier the present petitioners had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing No.1962 of 2025, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- "Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed seeking following main relief :- to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 in Case Crime No. 1020/2011 filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code & Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District- Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No.1 to this application alongwith its consequential orders and entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012, pending before Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Trial Court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned Court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned Court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned Court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned Court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case." In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the parties have joined hands to submit that in furtherance of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.03.2025, the parties had appeared before the trial Court, where the compromise has been verified and the Court has furnished its report which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the parties have entered into the compromise which has been verified by the Court concerned, who has submitted its report and a certified copy of the report has been brought on record as Annexure No.2 which is in furtherance of the order dated 04.03.2025 which has been quoted hereinabove. Learned AGA has fairly submitted that the compromise has been verified appropriately in terms of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.03.2025. Taking note of the aforesaid and noticing the decision of the Apex Court Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, wherein it has been held as under:- "i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." Considering the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 filed in Case Crime No.1020/2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012 pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Rakesh/-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State-respondents. Shri Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 in Case Crime No.1020/2011 filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No.4 to this application along with its consequential orders and entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012 pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, in the interest of justice." It has been informed that the parties have entered into a compromise. It is further urged that earlier the present petitioners had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bearing No.1962 of 2025, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- "Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed seeking following main relief :- to quash the impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 in Case Crime No. 1020/2011 filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code & Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District- Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No.1 to this application alongwith its consequential orders and entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012, pending before Learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya, in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Trial Court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned Court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned Court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned Court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned Court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case." In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the parties have joined hands to submit that in furtherance of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.03.2025, the parties had appeared before the trial Court, where the compromise has been verified and the Court has furnished its report which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the parties have entered into the compromise which has been verified by the Court concerned, who has submitted its report and a certified copy of the report has been brought on record as Annexure No.2 which is in furtherance of the order dated 04.03.2025 which has been quoted hereinabove. Learned AGA has fairly submitted that the compromise has been verified appropriately in terms of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.03.2025. Taking note of the aforesaid and noticing the decision of the Apex Court Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, wherein it has been held as under:- "i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes 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 complaint 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 the 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 appropriately 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." Considering the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned chargesheet dated 12.10.2011 filed in Case Crime No.1020/2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 294 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, lodged at Police Station-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.396/2012 pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Rakesh/-