Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14554 of 2021 Applicant :- Paramhans Rao And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Deepak Rana, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 01.07.2016 submitted in Case Crime No.296 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar, Cognizance Taking Order dated 20.02.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar upon aforesaid charge-sheet, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No.884 of 2017, (State Vs. Paramhans Rao and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar arising out of above- mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 08.06.2016, a delayed F.I.R. dated 27.06.2016 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Jai Prakash Rao, which was registered as Case Crime No.296 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Paramhans Rao, Suvash Rao, Arvind Rao, Ramawati Devi and Baby Devi have been nominated as named accused.
Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigation Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet against named accused. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 01.07.2016, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C.
After submission of above-noted charge-sheet, coginzance was taken upon same by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 20.02.2017. Accordingly, Case No.884 of 2017, (State Vs. Paramhans Rao and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar came to be registered. Thereafter, court below consequently summoned accused- applicants.
It is apposite to mention here that applicant-2, Suvash Rao lodged an F.I.R. dated 16.06.2016 which was registered as Case Crime No.0264 of 2016, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Jai Prakash Rao (first informant/opposite party-2 herein) and Ramji Rao have been nominated as named accused.
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 compromise affidavit dated 03.07.2021 was filed by applicant- 2, Suvash Rao before court below in Case No.1862 of 2017, (State Vs. Jai Prakash Rao and Another) stating therein that since parties have entered into a compromise, proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be terminated in the light of compromise. Similarly, Jai Prakash Rao, first informant/opposite party-2 filed a compromise affidavit in Case No.884 of 2017, (State Vs. Paramhans Rao and Others) stating therein that since parties have entered into a compromise, proceedings of above-mentioned case be terminated in the light of compromise. Photocopies of compromise affidavits dated 03.07.2021 are on record at pages- 66 and 67 of the paper book. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the basis of above-mentioned compromise, affidavit, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of afore-mentioned criminal case in view of compromise entered into by the parties.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. Deepak Rana, 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 itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instead of relegating the parties to Court below. He further contends that first informant/opposite party-2 filed Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.14871 of 2021, (Jai Prakash Rao and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Aforesaid criminal misc. application has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2021 in view of the compromise entered into by the parties. On basis thereof, it is thus submitted that present application is also liable to be allowed. For ready reference, order dated 14.09.2021 is reproduced herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 23.06.2016, cognizance order dated 29.04.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1862 of 2017 (State Vs. Jai Prakash Rao and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2016, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has also been verified by the learned court below on 04.09.2021. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view such settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up in practically all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.
In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even that course does not commend itself to the court in view of the high pendency of criminal cases and the high propensity to lie and state falsehood that appears to be otherwise rampant in the society - where desire to take revenge appears to sometime over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching a lesson to ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding.
Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed."
Per contra, learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. He contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have amicably settled their dispute, interest of justice require that proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case be quashed by this Court.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 also does not oppose this application. He contends that once first informant/opposite party-2 has compromised with accused-applicants then in that eventuality, he cannot have any grievance in case proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He further does not dispute the compromise entered into between the parties as explicit from the compromise affidavit dated 03.07.2021 filed by first informant/opposite party-2 before court below.
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 the 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] in which the law expounded by Apex court in some of aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines 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 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 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 already compromised their dispute. 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 are remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. Apart from above, on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings initiated by applicant-2 against first informant/opposite party-2 and another have already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2021. No exceptional ground exists to deny the benefit of compromise so entered into by the parties to present applicants. The trial would thus 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.884 of 2017, (State Vs. Paramhans Rao and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar arising out of Case Crime No.296 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, are hereby quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Saif