High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28382 of 2021 Applicant :- Raghuvar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No.2086 of 2011 for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. at Police Station Madhogarh, District Jalaun on the basis of compromise. Further prayer is to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the instant application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that factual matrix of the case is that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no.2 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai at Jalaun against the applicants and one other co- accused. The Magistrate treated the aforesaid application as a complaint case, recorded statements of opposite party no.2 and witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the statements of the complainant and witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 19.10.2012. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed a revision bearing no. 235 of 2012 before the court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun. The Sessions Judge, after hearing the matter, allowed the revision vide order dated 4.2.2013 and set aside order dated 19.10.2012 and the matter was remitted back to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing the order afresh. After the matter was remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he summoned the applicants in the aforesaid complaint case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in fact the aforesaid incident has taken place due to sudden provocation and there was no any criminal intent of the applicants to commit any offence. The applicants are residing in the same village and under misconception, the aforesaid dispute arose and said incident has
Facts
taken place. He further added that both the parties thereafter sat together and have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise on 14.9.2021. Now, they are living in peaceful atmosphere.
Legal Reasoning
by this Court invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Placing reliance on the ratio of the aforesaid Judgments, he further submits that after verification of the compromise, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the criminal proceeding in instant matter is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the aforesaid contention and further added that in fact the parties have entered into compromise and that too has been verified before the court below. 12. Learned A.G.A. has also no objection to the contention aforesaid. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is evident from the perusal of the record that the matter was referred for verification of the compromise, vide order dated 15.2.2022 and, thereafter, parties appeared before the court below and the compromise was verified and verification report was prepared on 15.3.2022. Further Additional District and Sessions Judge has also sent certified copy of the compromise deed, the verification order along with the covering letter dated 24.3.2022, which is on record. 14. This Court has also noticed that the applicants appeared before the court below and filed compromise deed and put their signatures over there. Further, while verification of the compromise deed, the applicants, namely, Tribhuwan, Subhash, Raghuveer, were identified by the Vishwadeep Rao, Advocate and, thereafter, the compromise deed has been verified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Jalaun at Orai. 15. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to quashing the proceedings in question is supported by the ratio of the aforesaid Judgments of the Apex Court specifically Judgement in the case of Narendra Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that in non compoundable cases, the High Court has power under Section 482 to quash such proceedings wherein it has been categorically found that two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. In the instant matter, the rival parties are neighbours who have amicably settled their dispute, which also reflected from the compromise verification report. After quashing of the aforesaid proceedings, they want to live friendly and, as such, there can be no danger to the peace and tranquility of the society. Further, under such facts and circumstances, allowing and permitting the criminal proceedings to go on even after settlement between the rival parties would be of no avail and amounting to malicious prosecution. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the compromise deed along with the covering letter dated 24.3.2022 of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.11 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No.2086 of 2011 for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. at Police Station Madhogarh, District Jalaun is hereby set aside. 17. The instant application is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Ram Murti Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.08.23 10:14:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that after aforesaid settlement, the applicants filed the instant application before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 15.2.2022, referred the matter to the court below for verification of the original compromise deed. In compliance of the order dated 15.2.2022, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, VI, District Jalaun sent the report of compromise verification on 24.3.2022. The letter dated 24.3.2022 is also appended with the certified copy of the compromise deed which was entered into between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in fact the parties have amicably settled their dispute and now, no cause of action survives and if the instant matter is allowed to be continued, they will suffer unnecessarily. During the course of argument, he has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and has referred paragraph no. 14, 21, 26 and 31 of that Judgment, which are quoted herein below:- "14. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non- compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: continuation of "Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the facts that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, financial, commercial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and of not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse f the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavor stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the mercantile, financial, compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." “21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed: "Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise." This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society.” “26. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement. The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse.” “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the 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) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. " 7. Referring the abovesaid judgment, he submits that the Apex Court, while passing the aforesaid Judgment, has held that if the offender and the victim have settled the dispute where offences are not compoundable even then the High Court has power to quash the criminal proceeding while invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He also added that as per ratio of the Judgment, in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. It has further been categorized that certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has also drawn attention towards the offence recorded under para 21 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment wherein it has been held that if offences involved are of personal nature and are not offences against the society, and two rival parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves, then in such cases, inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked, even if the offences so committed comes under the category of non-compoundable cases. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on Judgments of the Apex Court referred to herein below:- (i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 706; (ii) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2012 10 SCC 303; (iii) Ramgopal & another Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 529. (iv) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 (v) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] (vi) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 (vii) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. 9. Referring the aforesaid Judgments, he submits that in fact where the dispute is in between the neighbors that has arisen out of family dispute and the matter has been amicably settled/compromised the proceedings in such cases can be quashed