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
Sushant And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:35788
Court No. – 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 11196 of 2023
Applicant :- Sushant And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sajivan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brij Lal Shukla,G.A.
Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Sajivan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as well as Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Sushant, Umesh Chand Tyagi, Smt. Savita with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 8047 of 2020, State vs. Sushant, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut, along with the charge sheet dated 13.08.2020 and cognizance order dated 03.09.2020 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut, in Case Crime No. 208 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut and with the further proceedings of said case during pendency of the present application.
3. Today, when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the applicants submits that out of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs), Rs.18,00, 000/- has already been paid by the applicants to the opposite party no.2 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has verified the said facts. Now, counsel for the applicants submits that he is ready to hand over a bank draft of Rs.12,00,000/- bearing cheque no. 664722 dated 20.02.2024 of Canara Bank, Delhi Vikaspuri II- 10018 to the opposite party no.2. Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has accepted the bank draft of Rs.12,00,000/- in Court today and states that now nothing remains to be paid to the opposite party no.2 and after receiving this amount, it will be a full and final payment and after this the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings and the same can be quashed.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-
“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.”
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute before this Court today, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.
6. In view of compromise arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, hence the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and all the proceedings of Case No. 8047 of 2020 (State Vs. Sushant), under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kithore, District Meerut, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Meerut, are quashed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2024
Prajapati
