Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1102 of 2019 Applicant :- Prem Chandra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing therewith the copy of verification done by the court below is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal proceeding pursuant thereto in S.T. No.77 of 2018 (State Vs. Prem Chandra & others), arising out of Case Crime No.106 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chandpa, District Hathras, pending in the court of Additional District Judge- Ist, Hathras on the ground that since the allegations were very personal between the parties and allegation and the grievances were confined between the parties and there was no involvement of any pubic in general, the parties since have entered into compromise on the issues in respect of which the grievance was raised in the First Information Report resulting in the submission of charge sheet, the same may be quashed and so the criminal proceedings.
On the first date when the case was entertained by this Court, Shri Ankit Kapoor (wrongly shown as Ankit Kumar) had put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama and conceded that the parties have really entered into compromise outside the court and compromise to that effect has been filed in the court concerned and copy whereof filed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal misc. application, was not disputed. Under this circumstances, this Court vide order dated 1.2.2019 directed the parties to appear on 15.2.2019 before the court concerned for due verification of signature and the compromise and the report was called from the court below. A report has been submitted to this court by Shri Ashish Jain, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hathras wherein it has been stated that the verification of the compromise has been done after due identification of the parties. It is worth noticing that the criminal prosecution has been launched with the submission of charge sheet under various sections noted above with the lodging of the First Information Report in which very personal allegations were made against the accused persons to have barged into the house and they misbehaved with the daughter of the complainant that resulted in the offence as contained under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code and the S.C./S.T. Act as amended in 2015, but there is no such allegation that any such incident had taken place in a public place or that there was any allegation against use of abusive language in public view or that the conduct was such which if compromise is permitted it would not be in the interest of public.
Learned counsel for the respective parties agreed that no more any dispute survives between the parties and since the settlement has taken place, now the proceedings are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another, 2014(6) SCC 466.
I have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court (supra). The relevant para 31 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder :
"31. 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:
(I) 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.
(II) 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.
(III) Such a power is not 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 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.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominantly 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 later 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.
(VII) 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 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."
In view of the above expositions of the law and the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to reject the compromise of which due verification has been done and no useful purpose will be served to continue criminal prosecution in S.T. No.77 of 2018, arising out of in Case Crime No.106 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act and consequently proceedings as above against the applicants are hereby quashed.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. accordingly stands granted.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Anand Sri./-