Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14587 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of applicant today annexing the certified copy of compromise as well as verification order is taken on record.
Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the entire proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 24.11.2019 and cognizance order dated 23.12.2019 in Criminal Case No.4211/9 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.009 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Shamli pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the compromise between the parties has already been filed as Annexure-5 to the present application and as the matter has been compromised on 7.7.2021, therefore, the present case be finally decided.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. This fact of compromise has confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the parties and has jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
It was further submitted by both the counsel that the parties appeared before the Court below and Court below verified the signatures of both the parties and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli duly verified the veracity of the compromise deed vide order dated 4.9.2021. Copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.SA1 to the Supplementary Affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court and placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his case.
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-
i. "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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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;
iv. 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;
v. 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;
vi. 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;
vii. 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;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;
ix. 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
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."
With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deemed proper and to meet the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This Court has not verified their credentials. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 24.11.2019 and cognizance order dated 23.12.2019 in Criminal Case No.4211/9 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.009 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Shamli pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli is hereby quashed.
The parties may file the copy of this order before the Court below within three weeks from today.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 SFH