SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Kumar Kanojia And … vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. … on 18 January, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Kumar Kanojia And … vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. … on 18 January, 2024

Author: Rahul Chaturvedi

Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC-LKO:5161

Court No. – 28

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 409 of 2024

Applicant :- Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Kumar Kanojia And Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui,Gaurav Kumar Hasani

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Ms. Shobha Amarnath Tiwari, learned Advocate files her Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui and Gautav Kumar Hasani, learned counsel for the applicants; Ms. Shobha Amarnath Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 20.03.2022, cognizance order dated 15.6.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.58665 of 2022 (State vs. Dilip Kumar Kanojia and others), u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.-Chinhat, District-Lucknow, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow.

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that pursuant to earlier order of the concerned Magistrate, the matter was remitted to the mediation centre, where the parties have participated and the mediation process has resulted in a mutual settlement between the parties on their own terms and conditions. Settlement executed between the parties is annexed as Annexure-5 to the petition, which clearly indicates that the parties have come to terms and agreed sum was transferred in favour of opposite party no.2.

Ms. Shobha Amarnath Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has nodded in affirmative that her client has received agreed sum and nothing is left to be recovered from the applicants. She further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not inclined to prosecute the applicants any more and therefore she has no objection if the impugned proceedings of the present case is quashed and this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that 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. The contention of the applicants’ counsel is that as the opp. party no.2 is not interested to pursue the matter pending in the lower court, in the wake of the inter-se compromise arrived at in between the parties, the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the applicants has also drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

(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 Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER”, decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench 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.”

In the present case, the matter has been compromised between the parties and they have resolved the dispute and differences in between them. The existence of Mediation Centre has found its full vindication and the parties have amicably settled the controversy. If the proceedings of lower court are still allowed to go on, it is apparent that the same shall be a sheer abuse of the court’s process. The dockets of the pending cases are already bursting on their seams and the lower Courts must be allowed to engage themselves in more fruitful judicial exercise and not be saddled with matters like the one at hand whose fate is already sealed.

With the assistance of the guidelines provided in aforesaid case law, 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 that in order to meet the ends of justice and avert the abuse of court’s process the impugned proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed forthwith.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties, the impugned summoning order, charge sheet and the entire proceedings of the present case against the applicants are hereby quashed.

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

Order Date :- 18.1.2024

M. Kumar

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation