Allowed

Ram Bharosi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2019A482/16145/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings arising from a dispute regarding cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC. The court allowed the application on the ground that the parties had amicably settled the matter and compromised through a deed, finding that continuing the trial would be an abuse of court process.

What did the court decide?

The minor case No. 200 of 2017 and the summoning order dated 12.04.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC are quashed.

Ram Bharosi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16145 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Bharosi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Sharma on behalf of opposite party no. 2. and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party is taken on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 12.04.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 200 of 2017 (Uma Devi Vs. Ram Bharoshi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1085 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the parties that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves and have mutually compromised the matter.

¶9

According to the counsel, there is no dispute left out any more in between the parties and they wish no more litigation in between them.

¶10

In the short counter affidavit, the copy of the compromise deed dated 30.04.2019 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 as Annexure No. 1.

¶11

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :

¶12

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶13

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶14

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶15

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶16

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶17

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 the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail. A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the court's process may be averted. Even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. A criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial dispute has been found to be the proceedings of the same class where the inherent jurisdiction of this court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them. There are many other litigations which may also fall in the same class even though they do not arise out of matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations which do not have grave and deleterious social fall-outs may also be settled between the parties. In such matters also when parties approached the court jointly with the prayer to put an end to the criminal litigations in which they had formerly locked their horns, or if the record or the mediation centre's report indicates a rapprochement in between the parties, the Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power and terminate the pending proceedings. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon to depose in the court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a futile exercise in vain and the precious time of court

¶18

is attended with nothing except a cruel wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are the offences against the State and the inter-se compromise between the litigants cannot be countenanced with and the court despite the rapprochement arrived at in between the parties, would still not like to terminate the prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes of very grave nature entailing far reaching deleterious ramifications against the society. In those matters, the courts do not encourage either mediation or a compromise through negotiation and even the Apex Court has carved out exceptions and did not approve the quashing of non-compoundable offences regardless of their gravity. The Courts have to be discreet and circumspect and must see whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is indeed serving the ends of justice or to the contrary defeating the same.

¶19

In the wake of the compromise arrived at between the parties inter-se 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.

¶20

Accordingly, in view of the above, the present Misc. Case No. 200 of 2017 (Uma Devi Vs. Ram Bharoshi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1085 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are hereby quashed.

¶21

The application stands allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Shivangi

Ram Bharosi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharosi and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Mehra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Azmuddin and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavita Yadav Vs Gaurav Gupta and 6 Others

Aniket Vs State of Up and Another