Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39423 of 2013 Applicant :- Chandrashekhar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Sharma,Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Aman Mehrotra
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for private opposite party, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of the present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants are assailing validity and veracity of order dated 03.10.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Complaint Case No. 882 of 2011, under sections 506, 420 and 325 IPC whereby the application filed by opposite party no. 2- Mohan Lal for withdrawl of the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the contesting parties are the real brothers and due to some misunderstanding the instant complaint case was registered by the complainant Mohan Lal against two of his brothers on 21.04.2011. After recording of the statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, later on better sense prevailed between the rival parties, therefore, the aforesaid application was moved by the complainant himself for withdrawl of the proceedings in the instant complaint case but the same was rejected vide order dated 03.10.2013 by the court concerned, mentioning therein that offence is serious in nature. It is next contended that in fact the offence made in the complaint do not travel beyond the ambit of section 294 IPC and as the rival parties have come to a truce, therefore no useful purpose would be served in keeping on the proceedings of the case rolling, hence, the present proceeding is liable to be quashed.
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [2003 (4) ACC 675].
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [2012 (10) SCC 303].
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR [2013 (11) SCC 697].
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [2014 (6) SCC 466].
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [2014 (9) SCC 653].
(vi) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.349 of 2019 and 350 of 2019 on 5th March 2019.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "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.
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 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;
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 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;
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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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 misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties (annexed at annexure no. 5 of the informant-Mohan Lal), filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 882 of 2011, under sections 506, 420 and 325 IPC is hereby quashed.
The present 482 application stands allowed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concern lower court within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 shailesh