Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Gihar And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8157 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40796 of 2024 Applicant :- Mahendra Gihar And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for opposite party nos. 2.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 17.12.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 22.06.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 2388 of 2021 (State Vs. Ankit and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 730 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.- 1860, Police Station- Kotwali Kannauj, District- Kannauj.
3. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the court. On the basis of compromise, present applicants have moved an Application U/S 482 No. 26380 of 2023 (Mahendra Gihar and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) for quashing the criminal proceeding. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 24.07.2023, has disposed of the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. relegating the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. For ready reference, order date 24.07.2023 passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saurabh Tripathi, Advocate has put up his appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicants have preferred the present Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.12.2020, cognizance order dated 22.6.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2388 of 2021 (State Vs/ Mahendra Gihar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 730 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District – Kannauj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, District – Kannauj.
3. It is argued that by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that wife has already submitted an application before the court below with the affidavit that she wants to compromise in the case in question.
4. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they will also file compromise application duly signed by the applicants as well as opposite party no. 2 before the court below.
5. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to move a compromise application signed by all the parties before the court below before whom the proceedings are going on. If such a compromise application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the court below is directed to verify the contents of the aforesaid compromise and after verifying the same, obtained the signatures of the parties to the aforesaid compromise and both the parties put their signatures and made statement that they were entered into the compromise voluntarily.
6. In case, the Court concerned finds that the parties have entered into the compromise voluntarily and they do not want to proceed with the matter, the Court below will pass appropriate orders in the matter within four weeks thereafter.
7. Within a period of two months from today or till disposal of the aforesaid compromise application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the applicants in Case Crime No. 730 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District – Kannauj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, District – Kannauj.
8. It is made clear that the court below will pass a speaking order on the compromise application strictkly in accordance with law withing being influenced by the observations made by this court in this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.”
4. In pursuance of the order dated 24.07.2023, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj has passed compromise verification order dated 04.08.2023. Certified copy of the order dated 04.08.2023 is annexed as Annexure No. 5 Learned Magistrate has observed that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The contents of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, the compromise has been verified on the consent of the parties. For ready reference order dated 04.08.2023 is quoted herein below:
“04.08.2023
???????? ??? ????
??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????, ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ????
???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?????
?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????????-????/??? ?????? ??????? ???? 482 ????????? ?????? 26380/2023 ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???????? 24.07.2023 ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ????
??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????, ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?????, ????????? ?????, ????? ?????, ????? ?????, ???? ???? ?????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ????, ?????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????
??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???? ????
??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????????, ???????? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ????”
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants 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 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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”
7. Learned A.G.A. 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 took place between the parties 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 took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, 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 :- 17.1.2025
Sumit K.
[ad_1]
Source link