Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8875 of 2021
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheetala Prasad Pandey
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Pandey, holding brief of Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the charge sheet dated 21.12.2017, cognizance order dated 10.08.2018 and entire proceedings of Case No.3204 of 2018 (State Vs. Manoj Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No1706 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sant Kabir Nagar by way of compromise dated 08.02.2021 arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the parties have entered into compromise on 08.02.2021. He further argued that in compliance of order of this Court dated 23.07.2021, the parties have appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar for verification of the compromise entered between them. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 17.09.2021 verified the compromise between the parties, copy of the compromise deed and verification order of the learned court below has collectively been filed as Annexure S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant. This fact of compromise has confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the parties and has jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
It was further submitted by both the counsel that the parties appeared before the Court below and Court below verified the signatures of both the parties and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar duly verified the veracity of the compromise deed vide order dated 17.09.2021, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure No. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his case.
(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) Gian Ssingh 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.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, entire proceeding of Case No.3204 of 2018 (State Vs. Manoj Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No1706 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sant Kabir Nagar, is hereby quashed.
The parties may file the copy of this order before the Court below within three weeks from today.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 pks