Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 13846 of 2021
Applicant :- Santosh Rajpal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- S.B.Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Nath Pandey
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. S.B. Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Raj Nath Pandey, the learned counel for opposite party-2.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 11150 of 2020(State Vs. Santosh Rajpal) arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2018, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Babina, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi on the basis of compromise.
Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties who are related to each other amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed dated 8.12.2020 was prepared. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, applicant has approached this Court, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of aforementioned case.
Present application came up for admission on 30.3.2022 and this Court passed the following order:
“1. Heard Sri S.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raj Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 02.12.2019 in Criminal Case No.11150 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.60 of 2018 (State Vs. Santosh Rajpal), under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377, IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Babina, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that parties have settled the matter through compromise. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 acknowledge the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for the parties submit that compromise be verified and matter be disposed of accordingly.
4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that parties shall appear before the trial court within three weeks from today and file written compromise before the trial court. If any written compromise is filed before the trial court, it shall after proper verification will verify the compromise and submit its report on the next date of listing. The parties may also take certified copy of the compromise verification report and file it with supplementary affidavit.
5. Put up this case on 04.05.2022 as fresh.
6. Till the next date of listing no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants in the aforesaid case. ”
Subsequent to above order dated 30.3.2022, parties appeared before Court below for verification of compromise so entered into by the parties. Court below by means of order dated 5.7.2022, verified the compromise so entered by the parties. Accordingly, Court below has submitted its report dated 6.4.2022 before this Court.
Office has submitted a report dated 20.6.2022, stating therein that verification report sent by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Jhansi is placed on record.
Learned counsel for applicants thus contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Morevover, dispute between parties is a matrimonial dispute. During pendency of afore mentioned case, parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed dated 8.12.2020 was filed before Court below which has been verified by Court below also. As such, compromise entered into by the parties has been verified by Court below and acted upon.
On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicants that once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned case. Interest of justice shall better be served, in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned case 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.
Learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. He contends that dispute between parites is basically a private dispute. Parties have already compromised which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no ground exists to continue the prosecution of applicants.
It is further contended by learned A.G.A that once complainant/opposite party-2 has himself compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court. He has further invited attention of Court to the averments made in paragraps 10 and 11 of affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C, wherein the factum of compromise entered into by parties and its consequential verification by Court below have been duly pleaded.
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
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 the 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 the 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 the law expounded by Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Recently 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. Dispute between parties, is basically a matrimonial dispute. Moreover, during pendency of present application, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties have been verified by Court below and acted upon. As such, no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned complaint case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants are remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial 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 application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Consequently, entire proceedings of Case No. 11150 of 2020(State Vs. Santosh Rajpal) arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2018, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Babina, District Jhansi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi, are hereby, quashed.
Application is, accordingly, allowed.
Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022