Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13735 of 2021 Applicant :- Sabha Shankar Shukla And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shanker Mishra,Sarita Devi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Prem Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Chandra Bhooshan Mishra, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party 2 by filing compromise affidavit along with his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet No. 115 of 2015, dated 12.06.2015 submitted in Case Crime No. 174 of 2015, under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Handia, District Allahabad, Cognizance Taking Order dated 06.01.2019 passed in aforesaid case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No. 68 of 2019 (State Vs. Prabha Shankar Shukla and others), now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-8, Allahabad.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 29.04.2015, a delayed F.I.R. dated 03.05.2015 was lodged by first informant opposite party 2 Srikant Mishra and was registered as Case Crime No. 174 of 2015, under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Handia, District Allahabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Shabha Shankar Shukla, Ashish Kumar alias Munna and Atul Kumar (applicants herein) have been nominated as named accused.
Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R. police proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 12.06.2015 whereby named accused have been charge-sheeted under sections 353, 504, 506 IPC. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 06.01.2019. As a consequence of aforesaid, above mentioned criminal case case came to be registered. Thereafter, applicants are alleged to have been summoned in above mentioned criminal case.
During pendency of above noted criminal case, informant opposite party-2 Srikant Mishra and accused applicants namely Shabha Shankar Shukla, Ashish Kumar alias Munna and Atul Kumar amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was arrived at between parties, which has been verified by notary. A photo copy of same is filed as Annexure 5 to the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Subsequent to aforesaid a joint compromise application dated 23.3.2021 was filed by parties before Court below. Copy of same is on record as Annexure 6 to the affidavit in support of application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. By means of aforesaid application, parties jointly prayed matter be decided by Court on the basis of compromise so entered by the parties. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the joint application dated 22.3.2021l in the light of facts noted above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. During pendency of case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed was drawn. On basis of above, an application was filed by informant opposite party 2 before court below on 22.3.2021 praying therein that compromise be accepted and the matter be decided accordingly.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicants that 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 it's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has supported the prayer made by learned counsel for applicant. It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 that once informant himself has compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has further invited the attention of Court to the compromise affidavit filed by opposite party-2, wherein the factum of compromise so entered between the parties has been duly admitted and further the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C, have also been admitted.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application.
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 SCC226
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 annother, 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 the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held 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 a learned Single Judge of 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.
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 as compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10, 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 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 the case, as noted herein above and submissions made by counsel for the parties, this court is of considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.
Accordingly, continuance of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 68 of 2019 (State Vs. Prabha Shankar Shukla and others), now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-8, Allahabad, shall not serve any purpose. The trial shall entail a futile pursuit resulting in loss of judicial time 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. Consequently, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 68 of 2019 (State Vs. Prabha Shankar Shukla and others), now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-8, Allahabad, are, hereby, quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 HSM