High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102286 Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3042 of 2022 Applicant :- Uma Shankar Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahar Lal Pandey,Raj Kishore Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Monu Upadhyay Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Raj Kishore Dubey, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Monu Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a written compromise had taken place between them. Photocopy of compromise has been appended as Annexure 9 to the affidavit filed in support of application. This Court vide order dated 31.5.2022 directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned and file compromise for verification. In compliance of order dated 31.5.2022, parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court on 7.9.2022. Photocopy of compromise verification report dated 7.9.2022 has been appended as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 17.10.2022. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are relatives of the victim and there was some property dispute between the parties and as per allegation of FIR, there was only an attempt to commit rape. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that opposite party no.2 has no objection to the present petition filed on behalf of the applicants. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraph 15 is quoted herein below:- "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that dispute between the parties is purely private dispute and not a crime against the society and since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the Trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge-sheet No. 01/17 dated 11.8.2017, cognizance order dated 16.1.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No.433 of 2017 under Sections 376, 511, 354, 323 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 11.5.2023 P.P. Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad