Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4371 of 2021 Applicant :- Abdullah And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for applicants, and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge sheet No. 185 of 2020 dated 31.5.2020 (State Vs. Abdullah) in Case Crime No. 74 of 2020, under Sections- 308, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station- Sambhal, District- Sambhal as well as entire proceedings of Consequential Case No. 1899/9 of 2020 (State Vs. Abdullah), arising out of above mentioned case crime number and now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi in view of compromise entered into by the parties.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 26.1.2020, first informant/opposite party-2, Shadab initially lodged a N.C.R. report which was registered as N.C.R. No. 8/20 dated 26.1.2020.
5. Subsequently, on the basis of medical report, an F.I.R. dated dated 3.3.2020 came to be lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 74 of 2020, under Sections- 308, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station- Sambhal, District- Sambhal. In the aforesaid F.I.R. two persons namely, Abdullah and Muneem have been nominated as named accused.
6. After registration of above mentioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above, and other material gathered by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, complicity of named accused came to be established in the crime in question. Consequently, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Resultantly, a charge sheet dated 31.5.2010 was submitted, whereby and whereunder named accused i.e. applicants have been charge sheeted under sections 308, 323, 504 IPC.
7. After submission of aforesaid charge sheet dated 31.5.2010, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi took cognizance upon same, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 7.10.2020 passed on the charge sheet. As a consequence of above, criminal case no. 1899/9 of 2020 (State Vs. Abdullah and Another) under sections 308, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Sambhal, District Sambhal came to be registered.
8. During pendency of above-mentioned case before court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed dated 27.9.2020 was drawn which has also been verified by a notary. Original copy of same is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. On the basis of above-mentioned compromise, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above mentioned case.
9. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for applicants that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned complaint case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, instead of relegating the parties to court below.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that applicants have not yet been summoned by Court below. Summoning order passed by Court below has not been brought on record. As applicants have not yet been summoned by Court below, they have no right to approach this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. as no proceedings are pending. Admittedly an offence under section 308 IPC is triable by Court of Sessions. Criminal case pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions. It is then contended that irrespective of above, compromise entered into by the parties cannot be accepted by this Court. Compromise so entered between parties has not even been filed before Court below, as such, same cannot be relied upon at this stage. It is also contended that proceedings of above mentioned criminal case can not be quashed on the basis of compromise as injured Shadab i.e. first informant opposite party-2 has sustained grievous injury on his head as is clearly evident from the supplementary report dated 21.2.202020, copy of which is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that crime committed by applicants is a crime against society. Dispute between parties is not a purely private dispute as suggested by learned counsel for applicant. It is thus urged by learned A.G.A. that present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
11. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497
8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653
10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
14. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
15. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
16. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
17. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. In Dimpey Gujral (supra), it was held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as same fall in the category of crime against society. It was however observed that court should bear in mind that if because of compromise between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused by not quashing the criminal proceedings, then in that eventuality High Court should quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) has observed that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which law expounded by Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
12. Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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;
16.2. 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.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;
16.4. 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;
16.5. 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;
16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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;
16.7. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
16.8. 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;
16.9. 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
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for parties and material on record, the Court finds that parties have entered into compromise outside the Court. However, compromise, so entered into, by the parties vide compromise deed dated 27.9.2020 has not been filed before court below. Consequently, no reliance can be placed upon alleged compromise. Furthermore, injured Shadab first informant/opposite party-2 has received grieveous injury on his head as is clearly explicit from supplemetary medical report of injured of injured Shadab dated 21.2.2020. Apex Court in State of M.P. (Supra) has clearly observed that compromise in a case under section 307 IPC can be accepted by Court, provided, injuries sustained by injured are neither grievous nor fatal. Moreover, injured should not have received injury on any vital part. Applicants have been charge sheeted under Section- 308 I.P.C also. This is primarily on the ground that injured Shadat has received fire arm injury on his head. The doctor who had examined the injured Shadab, opined that injures are grievous in nature. Moreover, an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is a crime against society and not a purely private dispute. Consequently, proceedings of above-mentioned case cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
14. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
15. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Arshad