Allowed

Wali Mohammed and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/821/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 146, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents regarding settlements in disputes with a civil flavour, the Court held that since an amicable settlement was reached, continuing the trial would serve no purpose and would not secure justice.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 262347 of 2018 under Sections 146, 323, 504, 506 IPC is quashed.

Wali Mohammed and Ors. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 821 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Wali Mohammed And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijendra Singh,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard, Sri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Brijendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 262347 of 2018 (State v. Wali Mohammad) arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2018, under Section 146, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mall, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. jointly submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise on 06.12.2019 and they have settled their dispute amicable out of the court. The applicants and opposite party no. 2 are resident of same village. The aforesaid compromise dated 06.12.2019 has been verified by Senior Registrar of this Court on 28.02.2020 and the report is affixed in the order sheet. The parties have entered into compromise without any undue influence and coercion.

¶9

Both the parties entered into a amicable settlement, and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for the parties and has jointly submitted that in the interest of justice the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

¶10

To appreciate the submission of the applicant, it will be worthwhile to refer some decision of the Supreme Court with regard to scope and power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code.

¶11

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, after considering

¶12

the reference, whether non-compoundable offence be permitted to be compounded by the court directly or indirectly, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, has observed as under: (SCC, p. 340-41, para 56, 57 & 58)

¶13

"56. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

¶14

57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

¶15

58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."

¶16

In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under; (SCC, p. 653, para 16)

¶17

"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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

16.4. While the inherent poser 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 or 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.

¶23

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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶24

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.

¶25

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 case oppression and prejudice; and

¶26

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offence 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."

¶27

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the present application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed.

¶28

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 262347 of 2018 (State v. Wali Mohammad) arising out of Case Crime No. 0061 of 2018, under Section 146, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mall, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow, is hereby quashed.

¶29

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. If at all, opposite party no. 2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

¶30

The parties may file the certified copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 VPS

¶32

Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.08.23 10:19:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Wali Mohammed and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wali Mohammed and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Smt. Sayama Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home, Lko.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Pankaj Verma Alias Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shiv Vishal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Udai Bhan Singh Vs in the Court of Special Judge Sc/St (P.a.) Act/Ii A.D.J. Sultanpur and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Depart. Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow and Another