Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6831 of 2021 Applicant :- Vineet Singh @ Abhishek Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh And Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7104 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Tripathi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. And Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10617 of 2021 Applicant :- Sujeet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sheshadri Trivedi,Shri Satish Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Madan Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.6831 of 2021.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Madan Singh, learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.7104 of 2021.
Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.10617 of 2021.
Perused the record.
Facts Relating To Criminal Misc. Application No.6831 of 2021
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 04.09.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.0265 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 395, 397, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 12.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Court No.8, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020, (State Vs. Vineet Singh and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi arising out of afore-mentioned case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Court No.8, Varanasi.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 04.06.2019, a prompt F.I.R. dated 04.06.2019 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Omkar Nath Tripathi and was registered as Case Crime No.0265 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 395, 397, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Vineet Singh, Amit Singh, Prince Singh, Pranshu Singh and Sujeet Singh have been nominated as named accused.
In brief, as per prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., it is alleged that named accused came at the shop of Sachin Tripathi, son of first informant. They had some verbal altercation and thereafter named accused assaulted Sachin Tripathi on account of which he sustained injuries. The F.I.R. further states that accused persons took away Rs.3 lacs which was lying in the cash box of the shop. They also looted the gold chain from the person of Sachin Tripathi. They are further alleged to have damaged the car parked outside, and took away D.V.R. of video recording camera.
After registration of F.I.R. dated 04.06.2019, injured Sachin Tripathi was medically examined. His Medico Legal Report is on record at page-43 of the paper book. Injured Sachin Tripathi has sustained following injuries.
1. Stitched wound No. of Stitches 02, about 02 cm in length, Rt. side head about 11 cm above from Rt. ear Pinna, K/U/O Advice X-ray head Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
2. Stitched wound No. of Stitches 11 in nos., length about 06 Cm, Mid of forehead including no. of about 8 cm below from Injury No.1, K/U/O Advice X-ray head Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
3. Red Contusion, 5.5 cm x 4.5 cm including left eye, left side of face including left eye K/U/O Advice X-ray head Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
4. Red Contusion, 4 cm x 2.5 cm left arm about 05 cm below from left shoulder, K/U/O Advice X-ray head Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
5. Contusion, 7 cm x 2 cm left arm about 05 cm above from left elbow joint, K/U/O Advice X-ray left forearm Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
6. Contusion, 5 x whole circumference, left fore arm about 2.5 cm below from left elbow Jt. K/U/O Advice X-ray left arm Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
7. Contusion, 3 x 2.5 cm left wrist Jt., K/U/O Advice X-ray left writ joint Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
8. IV Cannalin in place in Right forearm.
9. Contusion 3 x 2.5 cm. Rt. wrist Joint, K/U/O Advice X-ray right writ joint Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
10. Contusion 1 x whole circumference right hand ring and middle finger tip, K/U/O Advice X-ray right hand Ref. to District Hospital Varanasi.
11. Contusion 5 x 3 cm. left side back of chest about 10 cm. below from left shoulder - K/U/O Advice X-ray Chest.
12. Contusion 5 x 3 cm. left side back of chest about 03 cm. from Ring No.11- - K/U/O Advice X-ray Shoulder.
13. Contusion right side shoulder 10 x 5 cm., - K/U/O Advice X-ray right shoulder.
14. Bleeding from left Nostril present, K/U/O Advice X-ray nose.
Subsequently, radiological examination of injured Sachin Tripathi was also conducted on 05.06.2019. In the aforesaid radiological examination, it was found that injured has sustained following injuries:-
"Depressed commnuted fracture frontal bone with pneumocephalus and hemosinus.
Fracture nasal bone with deviated nasal septum ad septal hematoma."
Subsequent to above, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses including injured in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 04.09.2019, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein, have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C. After submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same and simultaneously applicants who are charge-sheeted accused were summoned vide order dated 12.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020, (State Vs. Vineet Singh and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi.
During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of compromise so entered into by the parties, a compromise deed was drawn on 01.02.2021. Subsequently, same was filed before court below. As no orders were passed by court below in the light of afore-mentioned compromise deed, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Present application came up for admission on 09.08.2021 and this Court passed following order.
"Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing cognizance/summoning order dated 12.6.2020 and charge- sheet dated 4.9.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.7324 of 2020 (State Vs. Vineet Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into the compromise. The compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 9 to this application.
The applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.
Put up this case on 21.9.2021 as fresh before appropriate Bench, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in Case No.7324 of 2020 (State Vs. Vineet Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi."
Pursuant to above order dated 09.08.2021, parties appeared before court below and file a compromise application dated 24.08.2021. Aforesaid compromise application was accepted on record by court below vide order dated 24.08.2021 and was also verified on the same date. Certified copies of the compromise application as well as orders passed by court below on the compromise application have been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 17.09.2021 filed by applicants.
Facts Relating To Criminal Misc. Application No.7104 of 2021
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 23.11.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.0447 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 397 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 24.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIII, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.8537 of 2020, (State Vs. Sachin Tripathi and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi arising out of afore-mentioned case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIII, Varanasi.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 04.06.2019, first informant/opposite party-2, Radhey Shyam Singh lodged a delayed F.I.R. dated 20.09.2019, which was registered as Case Crime No.0447 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 397 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons, namely, Sachin Tripathi, Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, Omkar Nath Tripathi, Manoj Kumar @ Guddu Tripathi and Sushil Tripathi have been nominated as named accused, whereas 7-8 unknown persons have also been nominated as accused.
In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., it is alleged that named accused and others armed with laathi, danda and country-made fire arms came to the house of brother of first informant and on account of old enmity started abusing and further exhorted by abusing the family members of first informant. It is further alleged that named accused entered the house of brother of first informant and looted the gold chain from the person of brother of first informant. They damaged goods worth Rs.5,000/-. They are also alleged to have assaulted the family members of first informant. On account of assault by accused persons, Ashwini, Ankit and Abhishek have sustained injuries.
Injured Abhishek Singh was medically examined. His medico legal report is on record as Annexure-7. As per aforesaid report, injured Abhishek Singh sustained following injuries.
1. Red Contused Swelling 3 x 3 cm. Lt. side head 6 cm. above Lt. ear.
2. Red Contusion 7 x 4 cm. above of right arm 5 cm. below right shoulder joint.
3. Red Contusion 4 x 2 cm. back of left arm 10 cm. below left shoulder joint.
4. Red Abraded Contusion 6 x 2 cm. left arm left leg 10 cm. below left of joint.
5. Red Contused Swelling 4 x 3 cm. front of Lt. side writ knee and rest below Lt.
Similarly, injured Ashwini Singh as per his Medico Legal Report, has sustained following injuries.
1. Red Contusion 5 x 2 cm. front of left side chest 2 cm. below left collar bone.
2. Red Contusion 3 x 3 cm. Rt. shoulder joint.
3. Red Contused Swelling 3 x 3 cm. above Rt. writ joint.
4. Complain of pain lower back.
All Injuries are simple. Injury No.3- K/U/O Lastly, injured Ankit Kumar Singh as per his Medico Legal Report, has sustained following injuries.
1. Red Abraded Contusion 4 x 3 cm. back of Rt. Hand Joint above Rt. little finger.
2. Red Contusion 3 x 2 cm. back of Rt. forearm 3 cm. above Rt. wrist.
3. Red Contused Swelling 4 x 4 cm. Rt. shoulder joint.
4. Complaint of Pain back of Joint.
All Injuries are simple. Injury No.3- K/U/O.
Subsequent to above, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses including injured in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only three of the named accused is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 23.11.2019 whereby three of the named accused, i.e., applicants herein, have been charge-sheeted under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325 I.P.C. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same and simultaneously applicants who are charge-sheeted accused were summoned vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 24.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.8537 of 2020, (State Vs. Sachin Tripathi and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi.
During pendency of above-mentioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of compromise so entered into by the parties, a compromise deed was drawn on 01.02.2021. Subsequently, same was filed before court below. As no orders were passed by court below in the light of afore-mentioned compromise deed, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Present application came up for admission on 09.08.2021 and this Court passed following order.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance/summoning order dated 24.6.2020 and charge-sheet dated 23.11.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.8537 of 2020 (State Vs. Sachin Tripathi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0447 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 and 325 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VIII, Varanasi.
It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into the compromise. The compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 16 to this application.
The applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.
Put up this case on 21.9.2021 as fresh before appropriate Bench, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in Case No.8537 of 2020 (State Vs. Sachin Tripathi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0447 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 and 325 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi."
Pursuant to above order dated 09.08.2021, parties appeared before court below and filed a compromise application dated 24.08.2021. Aforesaid compromise application was accepted on record by court below vide order dated 24.08.2021 and was also verified on the same date. Certified copies of the compromise application as well as orders passed by court below on the compromise application have been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 18.09.2021.
Facts Relating To Criminal Misc. Application No.10617 of 2021
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 24.06.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIII, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020, (State Vs. Vineet Singh and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 395, 397, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-
Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, as well as entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIII, Varanasi.
Facts regarding to above-mentioned criminal misc. application have also been mentioned in detail in preceding paragraphs.
Present application came up for admission on 09.08.2021 and this Court passed following order.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 12.6.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M., 8th, Varanasi as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020 (State Vs. Vineet Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 8th, Varanasi.
It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into the compromise. The compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 7 to this application.
The applicant shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.
Put up this case on 21.9.2021 as fresh before appropriate Bench, on which date, the applicant shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020 (State Vs. Vineet Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi."
Pursuant to above order dated 09.08.2021, parties appeared before court below and file a compromise application dated 24.08.2021. Aforesaid compromise application was accepted on record by court below vide order dated 24.08.2021 and was also verified on the same date. Certified copies of the compromise application as well as orders passed by court below on the compromise application have been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 17.09.2021.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicants in respective cases that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Cross cases have been lodged by both the sides. However, once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal cases. Interest of justice shall better be served, in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal cases 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, as compromised entered into by the parties has been verified by court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that dispute between the parties is not a private dispute but a crime against society. Cross cases have been filed by parties. As such, occurrence is admitted. Court has now only to decide as to who is the aggressor.
He has then invited attention of Court to the record of Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.6831 of 2021 and has referred to the injury report of injured Sachin Tripathi. On the basis of above, learned A.G.A. contends that injured Sachin Tripathi has sustained injuries on vital part of his body, i.e., head. Referring to the nature of injuries sustained by aforesaid injured, learned A.G.A. contends that it cannot be said that injuries sustained by above-named injured are simple in nature. As such, parties cannot be permitted to get proceedings of afore-mentioned criminal cases terminated on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for first informant/opposite party no.2, in all the cases, have however, supported the prayer made by learned counsel for applicants. It is contended by learned counsel for first informant/opposite party-2 in different case crime numbers that once respective first informant/opposite party-2 have themselves compromised with accused-applicants, then in that eventuality, they cannot have any objection, in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal cases are quashed by this Court. He has also referred to the averments made in respective supplementary affidavits filed in support of present applications under section 482 Cr.P.C, wherein the factum of compromise entered into by the parties and its consequential verification by Court below have been duly pleaded. They, therefore, submit that since there are injured on both sides, therefore, compromise between parties is liable to be accepted.
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. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)
15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688
17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736
19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.
wherein Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the 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 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. Constitution Bench in Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another (supra) in paragraph 38 of the judgement approved the law laid down by three Judges Bench judgement in Gian Singh (supra) Court then approved the view that criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, another 3 Judges Bench of 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. It was, however, held that proceedings under Section 307 IPC can be quashed in view of compromise entered into by the parties, provided injured has not sustained grievous and fatal injury nor he should have sustained injury on vital part of the body. 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 law expounded by Apex court in some of aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
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."
Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-
"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section
320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties and the material on record, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. There are cross-cases in respect of the same incident. Consequently, there are injured on both sides. As such, accused and informants are standing on the same footing. Moreover, during pendency of present applications, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties have been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, on date no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned cases. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants are remote and bleak. Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The respective trials would 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 applications succeed and are liable to be allowed. Consequently, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7324 of 2020, (State Vs. Vineet Singh and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 308, 395, 397, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Court No.8, Varanasi and Criminal Case No.8537 of 2020, (State Vs. Sachin Tripathi and Others), under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No.0447 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 395, 397 I.P.C., Police Station-
Phoolpur, District- Varanasi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- VIII, Varanasi, are, hereby, quashed.
Applications are, accordingly, allowed. Costs made easy.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021/Saif