State v. Nalnish Singh and others) arising out of case crime no
Case Details
Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3081 of 2022 Applicant :- Nalnish Kumar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Singh Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
subject, may be summarised in the following propositions; 16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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; 16.4. 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; 16.5. 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; 16.6. 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; 16.7. 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; 16.8. 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; 16.9. 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 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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 facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.9820 of 2021 (State Vs. Nalnish Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.222 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mandauadeeh, District Varanasi are herby quashed and summoning order dated 14.6.2021 is set aside. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 5.3.2022 S.K.S. Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.08 12:55:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of Case No.9820 of 2021 (State Vs. Nalnish Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.222 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mandauadeeh, District Varanasi pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties. On 21.12.2021 the Court had passed the following order: The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.9820 of 2021 (State vs. Nalnish Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Manduadeeh, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi, along with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been arrived between them dated 01.11.2021 (photocopy of the same is appended as annexure No.4 to the application). Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, before which, the case is pending. Therefore, the compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court below itself. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notice to all its signatories 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. For a period of six weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants.” In compliance of the above order, learned Judicial Magistrate IInd, Varanasi has sent a report dated 6.1.2022. According to which, the compromise between the parties has taken place and the matter has been settled amicably. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the Judicial Magistrate, Iind, Varanasi the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case are quashed. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 Nikhil ii. Merchant Vs. Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] Central Bureau of iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1, iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the judgments noted above has been explained in detail. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Others Vs. State of Gujarat And Another (2017) 9 SCC 641 has laid down the following guideline with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the