Allahabad High Court
Siddhi Sagar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. … on 11 April, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20817 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8214 of 2022 Applicant :- Siddhi Sagar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anu Pratap Singh,Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Complaint Case No. 770 of 2022 (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Siddhisagar and others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 394, 452 and 504 IPC as well as order dated 21.10.2022 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Revision Case No. 88 of 2022 (Siddhisagar alias Siddhi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and entire proceedings of the aforesaid Complaint Case pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Unnao may also be quashed.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 & 08.12.2022 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 30.01.2023. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 30.01.2023 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.
4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:-
“A) The parties, in pursuance of Hon’ble Court’s order dated 24.11.2022 and 08.12.2022, have agreed to settle all their disputes arising due to rivalry and enmity of Village Pradhan Election as consequent to the same several FIRs. were lodged by and against each other.
B) That the parties, in order to live peacefully, have agreed not to pursue/withdraw the cases filed against each other. The details of the cases are as under:-
I. FIR No. 299 of 2019 U/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 341, 336, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Makhi, Unnao (Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Tunnilal and Ors) pending before JM Safipur, Unnao.
II. FIR No. 299 of 2019 U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 342, 427 IPC Police Station Makhi, Unnao (Vishal Vimal Vs. Sanjay & Ors) pending before SPL J. SC/ST Court ADJ, Unnao.
III. FIR No. 249 of 2022 U/s 307, 504, 506 IPC 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act P.S. Dahi, Unnao (Abhimanyu Vs. Pushepndra & Ors) pending before SPL J. SC/ST Court ADJ, Unnao
IV. FIR No. 96 of 2021 U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. HSNG. Unnao (Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Pushpendra & Ors) pending before Court Concerned, Unnao
V. FIR No. 0298 of 2019 U/s 308, 324, 506, 336, 325 IPC P.S. Makhi, Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Manas Mohan Rana & Ors) pending before Civil Judge Jr. Division (FTC), Unnao.
VI. FIR No. 0191 of 2021 U/s 147, 341, 352, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Makhi, Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Tannu Singh & Ors) pending before J.M. Court, Safipur, Unnao
VII. FIR No. 0228 of 2020 U/s 147, 323, 325, 341, 342, 308, 506 IPC P.S. Makhi Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Subham Singh & Ors) pending before J.M. Court, Safipur Unnao.
VIII. FIR No. 0045 of 2021 U/s 323, 504 IPC at P.S. Ajgain, Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Sunil & Ors) pending before ACJM IIIrd, Unnao.
IX. FIR No. 0038 of 202 U/s 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Makhi Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Tanvir & Ors) pending before J.M. Court, Safipur, Unnao.
X. FIR No. 0138 of 2022 U/s 342, 394, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Ajgain, Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Siddhi Sagar & Ors) pending before ACJM Court, Unnao.
XI. Complaint Case No. 78 of 2021 U/s 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (D), SC/ST Act at P.S. Makhi Unnao (Tunni Lal Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors) pending before court at Unnao.
XII. Complaint Case No. 770 of 2022 U/s 147, 148, 307, 323, 394, 452, 504 IPC at P.S. Ajgain, Unnao (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Siddhi Sagar & Ors) pending before court at Unnao.
XIII. FIR No. 163 of 2022 U/s 147, 352, 323, 504, 506, 395 IPC at P.S. Asiwan Unnao (Ramchandra Mallah Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors) pending Court at Unnao.
XIV. FIR No. 0135 of 2020 U/s 323. 504, 506 325 IPC P.S. Makhi, Unnao (Sarojni Vs. Vishal Vimal & Ors) pending before J.M. Court, Safipur, Unnao.
C) That parties have agreed not to have any objection if the Application U/s 8214 of 2022 (Siddhi Sagar and others Vs. State of U.P. & Anr) is allowed by the Hon’ble Court.
D) That both the parties understand, agree and further bind themselves that if either of the parties rescinds or does not follow the conditions stipulated herein above such act shall entail appropriate legal action.
E) That it is further agreed between the parties that they are fully of the view that proceedings of all the mentioned Criminal Cases may be consigned to record or quashed or set aside by the appropriate Court and none of the parties will raise any objection in this regard in future.
F) That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any member of thir respective families shall institute any case in future in the form of criminal or civil proceedings against each other or against any of their relative or family members in respect to the present dispute or any matter incidental thereto and if any proceeding has already been initiated, the same would be get disposed of in terms of this settlement Agreement.
5. By signing this agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to Application U/s 482 No. 8214 of 2022 (Siddhi Sagar And Others Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by t he Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:-
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, 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, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the 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 would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that 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.”
8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:-
“15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;
15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes 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.
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;”
9. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.
10. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the applicants, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.
11. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 770 of 2022 (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Siddhisagar and others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 394, 452 and 504 IPC pending in the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Unnao, as well as order dated 21.10.2022 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Revision Case No. 88 of 2022 is hereby quashed.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the present application is allowed.
.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Virendra
[ad_1]
Source link