Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Nath Pal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And … on 15 February, 2024
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC-LKO:13470
Court No. – 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 1068 of 2024
Applicant :- Jitendra Nath Pal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Tewari,Shivangi Kapoor
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Vakalatnama as well as short counter affidavit filed by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 09.01.2020 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act arising out of FIR No.286 of 2019 dated 08.06.2019 Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow and its summoning order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow along with entire proceeding of case no.25865 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.286 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow.
Today, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise deed, which is annexed as Annexure-4 whereby both the parties have come to terms and have sorted out their difference and disputes. On being inquired from learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, he has nodded in affirmative and submitted that both the parties have come to terms. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also contended that covenants of the compromise have jotted down their signatures and the signatories are none other than the opposite party no.2 herself.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant judgments:-
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]
4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705
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
11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
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
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.
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.”
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, the Court deems it proper and to meet to the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the charge sheet dated 09.01.2020 under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act arising out of FIR No.286 of 2019 dated 08.06.2019 Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District-Lucknow and its summoning order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow along with entire proceeding of case no.25865 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.286 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow is hereby quashed.
This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for contesting parties and perusing the counter 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 she has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, she may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 15.2.2024
Sumit S
