Allowed

Rijwan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021A482/7996/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since the dispute was private in nature, the injury was not grievous, and a valid compromise had been reached, prolonging the trial served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.378 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020.

Rijwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7996 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rijwan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel representing informant opposite party 2.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 2.10.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.378 of 2021 (State Vs. Rizwan and others), arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the Court of Judicial MagistrateBareilly.

¶7

It transpires from record that an F.I.R. dated 19.6.2020 was lodged by first informant, Rehana, which was registered as Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly. In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons, namely Rijwan, Irshad, Islam and Islam (applicants herein) have been nominated as named accused.

¶8

After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of same in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigating Officer formed an opinion that a charge-sheet should be submitted. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 2.10.2020, whereby named accused, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections452, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC.

¶9

Upon submission of above-noted charge-sheet, coginzance was taken upon same by court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 17.2.2021. Accordingly, Criminal Case No.Criminal Case No.378 of 2021 (State Vs. Rizwan and others) came to be registered in which applicants are alleged to have been summoned. Feeling aggrieved by above applicants who are charge sheeted accused have now approached this court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It appears that during pendency of above-mentioned criminal case before Court below, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties a compromise deed dated 17.02.2021 was drawn, which has also been verified by a notary. Photocopy of the same is on record at page-30 onwards of the paper book. On the basis of aforesaid compromise, an application dated 17.2.2021 duly supported by an affidavit was filed by informant/opposite party 2 praying therein that since compromise has been entered into between parties, above mentioned case be decided in terms of compromise. Photocopy copy of application as well as the affidavit are on record at pages 33 and 35 of the paper book. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the basis of above-mentioned application, applicants who are charge-sheeted accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above mentioned criminal case in view of compromise so entered between parties.

¶11

On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged by Mr. S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicants that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A.has opposed this application. Learned AGA contends that applicants have been charge sheeted under Section 324 IPC also. As such victim must have sustained serious injuries. He has further referred to the injury report of injured.

¶13

Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 however does not oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for applicants.

¶14

It is contended by Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 that once informant herself has compromised with accused-applicants, then in that eventuality, she cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. On the basis of instructions received by him he does not dispute the compromise entered into by the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

SCC 675

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

¶20

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

¶21

6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶22

7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

¶23

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

¶24

9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

¶25

10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

¶26

11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

¶27

12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶28

13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

¶29

14. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

¶30

15. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶31

16. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

¶32

17. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

¶33

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

¶34

the ground of compromise. However, 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. 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 the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶35

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:

¶36

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions

¶37

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;

¶38

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 noncompoundable.

¶39

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;

¶40

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;

¶41

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;

¶42

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;

¶43

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;

¶44

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;

¶45

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

¶46

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."

¶47

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions

¶48

made by counsel for parties, as well as the fact that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Upon perusal of injury reports of injured Rehana and Roshan Jahan which are on record at pages 17 & 19 of paper book, it is evident that the Doctor who examined aforesaid injured has not opined that injuries sustained by them are grievous or fatal. Moreover, parties have already compromised their dispute. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. 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.

¶49

In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.378 of 2021 (State Vs. Rizwan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.283 of 2020, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Bareilly,, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate- Bareilly, are hereby quashed.

¶50

Application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 piyush

Rijwan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rijwan and 3 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

Mohd. Shakir @ Shakir Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indira Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Man Singh @ Man Singh Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Vidhya Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another