1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, leaned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2526 of 2011 (State Vs. Pappu Singh @ Chandra Pratap Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 778 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 504. 506. 386. 448. 452 I.P.C. P.S.-Khalilabad Kotwali, District-Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred from 16.07.2011 to 21.07.2011, a delayed F.I.R. dated 25.07.2011 was lodged by first informant/opposite party no.-2 Ashok Singh and was registered as Case Crime No.778 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 504. 506. 452 I.P.C. P.S.-Khalilabad Kotwali, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R. one person namely Pappu Singh @ Chandra Nagrayan Singh has been nominated as named accused whereas four or five unknown persons have also been nominated as accused.
5. After registration of above mentioned 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 material collected during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer, ultimately submitted a charge-sheet dated 19.03.2017 After submission of above mentioned charge sheet, Cognizance was taken by concerned court. As a consequence of aforesaid, Criminal Case No. 2526 of 2011 (State Vs. Pappu Singh @ Chandra Pratap Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 778 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 504. 506. 386. 448. 452 I.P.C. P.S.-Khalilabad Kotwali, District-Sant Kabir Nagar came to be registered in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar
6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of above mentioned case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court and on the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, compromise was drawn, In the light of aforesaid, an application dated 06.08.2020 was filed by informant/opposite party no.2 before court below stating therein that in view of compromise, informant does not wish to contest the case. Present application came up for orders on 19.01.2021 and this Court passed the following order:
"1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Record shows that parties have entered into a compromise on 06.08.2019. Compromise application has also been filed before court below.
3. Court below shall verify the compromise and submit a report with regard to same on or before the date fixed.
4. Parties shall appear before court below on 28.01.2021.
5. Court concerned shall submit a report on or before 08.02.2021.
6. Put up this application as fresh on 09.02.2021."
7. Pursuant to order dated 19.01.2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar has submitted a report dated 03.02.2021 stating therein that compromise dated 06.08.2019 has been verified.
8. It is then contended by learned counsel for applicants that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During the pendency of case, parties have entered into settlement and on the basis of settlement so arrived between parties, a joint application dated 06.08.2019 has been submitted before court below praying therein that the matter be decided on the basis of compromise so entered between the parties. On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case this Court itself quashes the entire proceedings of above mentioned case, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 contends that once opposite party-2 who is informant has himself compromised with applicant, he now cannot have any objection in case the entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has further admitted the joint compromise application dated 18.02.2020 filed before court below.
10. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675 ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 iv. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011 (10) SCC 705 v. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vi. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 vii. Yagendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653 viii. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 ix. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688 x. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641 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. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) 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.
11. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guideline 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 recognises 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 aconviction 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."
12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for parties, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.
13.Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2526 of 2011 (State Vs. Pappu Singh @ Chandra Pratap Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 778 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 504. 506. 386. 448. 452 I.P.C. P.S.-Khalilabad Kotwali, District-Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, are hereby quashed.
14.The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 YK