Heard Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 26.11.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.273 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 13.01.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha in Sessions Case No.44 of 2021, (State Vs. Ankit and Another), under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, as well as entire proceedings afore-mentioned sessions case, and now pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 01.11.2020, a delayed F.I.R. dated 02.11.2020 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Shri Madan, which was registered as Case Crime No.273 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Ankit and Kaushinder have been nominated as named accused.
After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of statement of first informant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., medical report as well as other material collected during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicants, Investigation Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 26.11.2020, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act.
Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha passed Coginzance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 13.01.2021 in Sessions Case No.44 of 2021, (State Vs. Ankit and Another), under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha.
During pendency of above-mentioned sessions 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 15.01.2021 was drawn. Thereafter, same was filed before court below. Certified copy of compromise deed dated 15.01.2021 is on record as Annexure- 5 to the affidavit. Perusal of same goes to show that aforesaid compromise deed is supported by affidavit of first informant/opposite party-2. According to the compromise deed, it was prayed that since parties have settled their dispute and no difference exists between them, compromise entered between the parties be accepted and proceedings of sessions case be terminated. As no orders have been passed by court below 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 sessions case in view of compromise so entered between parties.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, 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 sessions case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned sessions 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.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that present application on behalf of applicant-1 is not maintainable as he is a minor. Remedy of applicant-1 is to file an application before court below for transfer of trial to Juvenile Justice Board, wherein the issue of his juvenility can also be decided. He further contends that crime committed by applicant-2 is a social crime and therefore, entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case on the basis of compromise so entered between the parties.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party-2 contends that dispute between parties is a private dispute. First informant/opposite party-2 has compromised with accused-applicants. As such on date, no dispute or difference exists between parties. It is then contended that once first informant/opposite party-2 has compromised with accused-applicants then in that eventuality he cannot have any grievance in case entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for applicants, however, could not dispute the submissions urged by learned A.G.A. Consequently, present application is confined only in respect of applicant-2, Kaushinder. Applicant-1, Ankit who claims himself to be a minor may approach court below for transfer of proceedings pertaining to him before Juvenile Justice Board and thereafter may take appropriate steps in the light of order passed today.
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 to accused 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties, this Court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned sessions case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction are remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. However, since applicant-1 Ankit claims himself to be a minor. Appropriate remedy for applicant-1 is to file an application before court below claiming himself to be a juvenile. After the issue of juvenility regarding applicant-1, Ankit is determined by court below, appropriate steps be taken by applicnt-1 in the light of this order. Consequently, no relief can be granted to applicant-1.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.44 of 2021, (State Vs. Ankit and Another), under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha arising out ofCase Crime No.273 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha, are hereby quashed only in respect of applicant-2.
Application is, accordingly, allowed in respect of applicant-2.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Saif