Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28290 of 2016 Applicant :- Moidden And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for setting aside charge sheet dated 5.11.2015, cognizance order dated 18.11.2015, order dated 26.4.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7257 of 2015(State vs. Moideen and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 454 of 2015under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 336 IPC, Police station Khekhra, District Baghpat.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. Earlier, applicants filed Application U/S 482 No.8784 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.3.2016 directing the parties to appear before the Court below and file compromise deed. The Court below was directed to verify the compromise. In pursuance of order dated 18.3.2016 both the parties appeared before the Court below on 26.4.2016, they were identified by their respective counsel and compromise was verified by the CJM, Baghpat vide order dated 26.4.2016(Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that injuries received by both injured Naseem and Sakir are not dangerous to life. He lastly prayed that since parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and they do not want to prosecute accused persons, entire proceeding agaisnt the applicants are liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA as also learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have not disputed the aforesaid facts and has no objection if present 482 Cr.P.C. petition is allowed and proceedings of case are quashed.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 has laid down law for quashing criminal proceedings where the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. Relevant paragraph 29 is quoted hereunder:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. 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 proving 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/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
Considering the aforesaid facts as well as law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court, since in the present case parties have amicably settled their dispute and filed written compromise before the Court below which was duly verified by the Court below and considering the fact that informant does not want to persecute present applicants, the proceedings of criminal case deserve to be quashed.
Therefore, present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7257 of 2015(State vs. Moideen and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 454 of 2015 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 336 IPC, Police station Khekhra, District Baghpat are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 P.P.