High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223720 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20165 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashok Bhadauriya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghana Ram Niranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Certified copy of the compromise application and certified copy of the compromise verification order dated 14.6.2023 passed by the courts below filed along with supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicant today in the court is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 3. The present applicants have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of charge sheet dated 2.9.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 247 of 2020 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya) arising out of the Case Crime No. 95 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun pending before Judicial Magistrate-Konch, Jalaun on the basis of compromise. 4. Opposite Party No. 2 has filed an FIR being Case Crime No. 95 of 2019 dated 11.4.2019 accusing the present applicants for cheating and criminal breach of trust etc. During pendency of the proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 29.5.2022, has directed the parties to file compromise application before the court below to get it verified and, simultaneously, the lower court was directed to verify the compromise and submit a verification report. For ready reference, the order dated 29.5.2022 is quoted hereinbelow:- “1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri G.R. Niranjan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 states that he will be filing his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in the office within two days. 4. If any such vakalatnama and short counter affidavit are filed, the office shall trace out the same and place them on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 7 to the affidavit in support of present 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned which shall be verified by the court concerned within three weeks thereafter and send its report to this Court. 7. List on 24.7.2023. 8. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants-Ashok Bhadauriya and Prabhat Kumar in Criminal Case No.247 of 2020 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhadauriya), Case Crime No.95 of 2019, u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Konch, District Jalaun pending before J.M. Konch, Jalaun.” 5. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 29.5.2023, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun has submitted a verification report dated 21.6.2023 along with a copy of compromise verification order dated 14.6.2023 indicating that the parties have appeared personally before the court below to get their compromise (i.e. Paper No. 21Kha/1 to Paper No. 21Kha/3) verified. They have also been identified by their respective counsel. Terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelt out to the parties, who have admitted the factum of the compromise. Parties have stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise without any coercion and duress and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 21.6.2023 and compromise verification order dated 14.6.2023, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the present applicants may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have buried the hatchet and 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 8. Learned AGA 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 applicant any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 10. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 21.6.2023, compromise verification order dated 14.6.2023 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 compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, 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 :- 24.11.2023 vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad