Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 76 (ALL)

Sandeep Alias Prabhakar v. State of U. P.

2025-01-21

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party nos.2 & 3 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record on board. 2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C . for quashing the quash the charge sheet dated 02.05.2011 as well as the summoning order dated 02.06.2011 and the entire proceedings of S.T. No.280/2011 (State v. Veer Bahadur & another), arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2011, under Sections 323 , 504 , 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Phephna, District- Ballia, pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Act, Ballia. 3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement took place between the parties, this Court, vide its order dated 29.08.2024, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, concerned District Magistrate was directed to submit a report regarding the return of compensation amount. For ready reference, order dated 29.08.2024 is quoted herein below: "1. Heard Mr. Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C . is filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 02.05.2011 as well as summoning order dated 02.06.2011 and the entire proceeding of S.T. No.280/2011 (State vs. Veer Bahadur & another), arising out of Case Crime No.50 of 2011, under Sections 323 , 504 , 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Phephna, District-Ballia, pending before Special Judge, SC/ST, Act, Ballia. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. In this regard, joint application has been filed by the parties, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. In this regard, joint application has been filed by the parties, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 . 4. Learned AGA does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 5. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. 6. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified through the concerned District Magistrate. 7. A report be called from the concerned District Magistrate whether any compensation was paid to the opposite party no.2 and the said amount has been returned back to the authority concerned or not. 8. Upon due verification of compromise, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case on 30.09.2024, as fresh. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. 8. Upon due verification of compromise, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case on 30.09.2024, as fresh. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia has submitted report dated 12.11.2024 appended with the report dated 21.10.2024 submitted by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ballia to the effect that victim has return the compensation amount on 10.09.2024. Report of District Social Welfare Officer is also on record in this regard. Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballia has submitted compromise verification report dated 30.09.2024 along with the copy of compromise verification order dated 20.09.2024. It evince from the order dated 20.09.2024 that both the parties were appeared before the court below and have been identified by their respective counsels. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been spelled out to the parties who have nodded the factum of the compromise and stated that they have entered into compromise on their own volition without any duress and coercion. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Order dated 20.09.2024 is quoted herein below :- 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667 . (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1 . (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 . (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 6. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667 . (iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1 . (iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 . (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 6. In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below :- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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; (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. 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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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. 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) 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; (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 misdemeanor. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." 7. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party nos.2 and 3 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 9. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party nos.2 and 3 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties. 9. Having considered the compromise took place between the parties and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. 10. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise took place between the parties, duly verified by the court concerned, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C . is hereby allowed . The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.