High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178952 Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29322 of 2022 Applicant :- Satai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indresh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present applicant have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of S.T. No. 104 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 389 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. The present applicant has lodged an FIR, being case crime no. 389 of 2011 dated 18.05.2011, with respect to the alleged incident took place on 18.05.2011 wherein contesting opposite parties (accused) have thrashed the applicant. During pendency of the
Legal Reasoning
trial, both the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and inked compromise dated 26.08.2022. Certified copy of the compromise is filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit, filed in support of the instant application. This Court, vide order dated 28.09.2022, has referred the matter before the trial court for verification of the compromise allegedly took place between the parties. For ready reference, the order dated 28.9.2022 is quoted herein below:-
Legal Reasoning
"Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-Ist, Sant Kabir Nagar to decide Session Trial No.104 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.389 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar on the basis of compromise dated 26.08.2022 already filed in accordance with law within the period specified by this Hon'ble Court. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant and opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 are close relatives with common ancestors. Due to some land dispute, an altercation took place between the parties, consequently the applicant had lodged the F.I.R. against opposite party Nos.2 to 10, vide Crime No. 389 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Both the parties are residing in the same locality and the dispute is purely private in nature. In due course of time, good sense prevailed between the parties and by intervention of some elderly and relatives they have settled their dispute and deed of compromise has been filed, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to this petition. Relations between the parties have become cordial. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the above circumstances, the matter be referred to the trial court for verification of compromise. Learned A.G.A. has no objection.
Decision
In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner/applicant is directed to submit the original deed of compromise before the trial court on or before the next date of hearing as fixed by the trial court. On the date fixed before the trial court, both the parties shall present before the trial court and the trial court shall verify the compromise in accordance with law. Thereafter, a report shall be submitted by the trial court concerned regarding the verification of compromise to this Court. Applicant is also at liberty to file certified copy of the verification report on the next date of listing. List this case in week commencing 21.11.2022." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.09.2022, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Sant Kabir Nagar, has submitted verification report dated 13.10.2022 with an observation that both the parties were present and identified by their respective counsels. Terms and conditions of compromise has been spelled out to the parties which has been admitted by them, accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court. Along with the verification report learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has appended the compromise verification order dated 11.10.2022 as well, which has been endorsed on the reverse side of first page of compromise application. Perusal of documents appended with the report reveals that two sets of compromise applications of same date i.e. 11.10.2022 have been filed by the parties wherein all nine (9) accused persons and the first informant (applicant herein) along with injured persons have entered into compromise and put their signatures/thumb impressions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the above eventuality of the compromise took place between the parties and the compromise verification report dated 13.10.2022, the instant application may be allowed and the criminal proceeding initiated against the private respondent Nos. 2 to 10 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. 6. 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 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 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." 7. 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. 8. Having considered the compromise verification report dated 13.10.2022, compromise verification order dated 11.10.2022 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. 9. 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. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 15.9.2023 A. Tripathi Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad