Allowed

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2022A482/20063/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings and the cognizance order in a case involving Sections 308, 323, and 504 IPC. The court relied on a verified compromise between the parties and cited Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and the case lacks merit.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in case no. 158 of 2020, charge sheet no. 342 of 2019, and cognizance order dated 30.7.2020.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20063 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the Applicant and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA of the State.

¶6

By way of filing present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant prays to quash the entire proceeding of case No. 158 of 2020 including charge sheet No. 342 of 2019 dated 7.12.2019 (arising out of case crime No. 435 of 2019), under Section 308, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Shahbad, District Rampur as well as cognizance order dated 30.7.2020, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Rampur.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that the FIR of the present case was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC. Later on, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC and after submission of charge sheet, the Magistrate took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.

¶8

In the meantime parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and in this regard, a compromise was executed between both the parties which is annexed as annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. This Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rampur to verify the compromise in the presence of the parties and submit its report to this Court. In pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by this Court, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court II Rampur submitted its verification report dated 2.12.2021 which is on record. The report dated 2.12.2021 submitted by ACJM, Court II, Rampur shows that the compromise entered between the parties have been duly verified.

¶9

Today when the case is called out then counsel for both the parties submitted that as both the parties have entered into a compromise and the compromise executed between both the parties has already been verified by the

¶10

court below and it is specifically stated in compromise that opposite party No. 2 do not want to contest the matter on merit and he is having no objection if the present case is decided on the basis of compromise executed between the parties, therefore, the impugned proceedings and charge sheet pending against the applicant may be quashed in terms of compromise entered between the parties.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that the parties have already entered into a compromise and compromise executed between them have also been verified by the court below, therefore, he is having no objection, if the proceedings of the present case may be quashed in terms of compromise entered between the parties.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

The admitted fact in the present case is that initially the FIR against the applicant was lodged by opposite party No. 2 under Sections 308, 323, 501 IPC and later on, after investigation charge sheet was filed against him and in the meantime, compromise has been executed between the opposite party No. 2 and the applicant. Perusal of the report submitted by the ACJM-II, Rampur dated 2.12.2021 shows that before ACJM-II, Rampur although both the parties appeared and compromise entered into between them was duly verified. But before this court, no body appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the compromise has already been entered into between the parties which has already been verified by the court below, therefore, it appears that opposite party No. 2 is reluctant even to engage any counsel on his behalf. He further submitted that as compromise entered between the parties has been duly verified by the cour below, therefore, even in the absence of any counsel of opposite party No. 2 an appropriate order, in terms of compromise, in the present case may be passed by this Court.

¶14

The present case relates to sections 308, 323, 504 IPC. Section 308 IPC as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not compoundable. However, as the law is now settled that even in non-compoundable cases this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise executed between the parties in

¶15

appropriate cases. The three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties and observed in para-13 as under:- Paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

¶16

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶17

(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable 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;

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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

¶21

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;

¶22

(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 impact 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."

¶23

Again recently, Apex Court in case of Ram Gopal Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (118) ACC 318 SC after disclosing its entire earlier judgements observed in para-19 as follows:-

¶24

"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 extraordinary 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 420 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised 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 the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported

¶25

offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶26

Therefore, from the judgement of the Apex Court, law is fairly settled now that even in cases which relates to non-compoundable offences this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings in terms of compromise executed between both the parties.

¶27

In the present case, the allegation made against the applicant in the FIR shows that due to personal animosity, the incident occurred and the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and compromise dated 9.1.2021, executed between the parties also shows that opposite party No. 2 do not want to contest the matter any further and he wants that the matter may be decided in view of the compromise dated 3.1.2021. As both the parties have already entered into compromise and the compromise executed between the parties has also duly verified by the court concerned and further the dispute mainly appears to be private in nature and further no fruitful purpose would be served, if, proceedings are permitted to continue as chances of conviction in the present case appears to be very bleak and remote, therefore, present case falls in the category in which criminal proceeding pending against applicant may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid discussion of the case, the proceedings of case no. 158 of 2020 including charge sheet No. 342 of 2019 dated 7.12.2019 arising out of case crime No. 435 of 2019, under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC, PS Shahbad, District Rampur as well as cognizance order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Rampur are hereby quashed.

¶29

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of c ompromise as mentioned above.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.5.2022

¶31

Ankita

¶32

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.24 09:22:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Chauhan Vs State of U.P and Another

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampher Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another