Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11370 of 2021 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gunjan Dwivedi,Kaushlesh Datt Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Gunjan Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 16.03.2007 submitted in Case Crime No. C-2 of 2006, under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur, as well as entire proceedings of Case No.203 of 2014, (State Vs. Mukesh and Others), under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Mirzapur.
It transpires from record that in respect of various incidents, first informant/opposite party-2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.409 of 2006. Aforesaid application came to be allowed by concerned Magistrate. Consequently, an F.I.R. dated 11.09.2006 came to be lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. C-2 of 2006, under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur. In the aforesaid F.I.R., nine persons, namely, Mukesh, Pappu, Molayi, Khetayi, Jholayi, Shri Ram, Manoj Kumar, Harish Chandra and Rajendra Kumar have been nominated as named accused and three sons of Molai have also been nominated as accused.
After registration of aforesaid 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 have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to accused, Investigation Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2007, whereby named accused and one unknown accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act.
After submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, coginzance was taken upon same by court concerned. Accordingly, Case No.203 of 2014, (State Vs. Mukesh and Others), under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur came to be registered. Applicants who are charge-sheeted accused are alleged to have been summoned by court below in afore-mentioned case.
During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case before court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a joint compromise application dated 26.02.2020 was filed before court below praying therein that proceedings of above- mentioned criminal be terminated on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties. Photocopy of certified copy of aforesaid application is on record from page-51 onwards of the paper book.
On the basis of aforesaid compromise, first informant/opposite party-2, Sheetla Prasad and 6 others who are accused in Complaint Case No.2020 of 2015, (Molai Vs. Sheetla Prasad and Others), under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.35785 of 2019, (Sheetla Prasad and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), wherein an order dated 27.09.2019 was passed. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-
"Vakalatnama along with compromise filed today by Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad, learned Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Shriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Chandra Shekhar Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 2020 of 2015 (Molai Vs. Sheetla Prasad and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, P.S. Kachhwan, District- Mirzapur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2nd, Mirzapur in terms of the compromise dated 21.10.2015.
It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 21.08.2019. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the application and affidavit dated 25.9.2019. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
List this case on 28.11.2019 before the appropriate Bench.
Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 23.10.2019 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.
Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-1 filed along with the application and affidavit dated 25.9.2019 to the application to the court concerned within three days.
Till the next date of listing no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants. "
Pursuant to above order, court below by means of order dated 26.02.2021 verified the compromise so entered into by the parties. Certified copy of the order dated 26.02.2021 is on record at page-62 of the paper book.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Gunjan 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 criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as compromise entered into by the parties has now been verified by court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have amicably settled their dispute, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned A.G.A. that present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed.
It is apposite to mentioned here that first informant/opposite party-2, Sheetla Prasad Kumhar has filed Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.35785 of 2019, (Sheetla Prasad and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), which application has been connected along with present application. Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants in afore-mentioned criminal misc. application upon instructions submits that he has no objection in case present application is allowed.
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 Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between 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 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] wherein law expounded by Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well as 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 the parties and material on record, this Court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, parties have amicably compromised their dispute, which has also been verified by court below. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above-mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of applicants who are charge- sheeted accused 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.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No.203 of 2014, (State Vs. Mukesh and Others), under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur arising out of Case Crime No. C-2 of 2006, under Sections- 406, 503 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kachchwa, District- Mirzapur pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Mirzapur, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Saif