Allowed

Gyan Chand and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022A482/2160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of prosecution despite charges involving non-compoundable offences. The court held that settlement between parties justifies quashing proceedings to restore peace and secure ends of justice, even if compounding is barred under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire prosecution against the applicants in the said case stand quashed.

Gyan Chand and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2160 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gyan Chand And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kandarp Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.05.2017 and cognizance order dated 19.06.2017 as well as entire prosecution of the applicants in Session Trial No.1646 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2017 (State Versus Gyan Chand and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C. I.P.C., P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh, pending in the court of of Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh, on the basis of compromise.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have arrived at a compromise. They have filed the compromise before the lower court which has been verified by it. Pursuant to the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43391 of 2019, the applicants moved an application before the lower court and prayed to decide the case on the basis of compromise. The lower court rejected their application and opined that Sections 147, 148, 452 and 308 I.P.C. are non- compoundable offences and they cannot be compromised even with the leave of the Court. Therefore, the lower court finding that compounding is expressly barred by the Cr.P.C. in the mentioned Sections rejected the application of the applicants.

¶8

The applicants have appeared before this Court again and have prayed to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire prosecution against the applicants as mentioned above.

¶9

No doubt that sections 147,148, 452 and 308 I.P.C. mentioned in the charge-sheet are non-compounding sections. The offence under these sections cannot be compounded even with the leave of the court. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. If the compromise would bring about the peace and would secure the ends of justice, the Court should not hesitate to quash the proceedings. In such cases the prosecution becomes a lame

¶10

prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettled the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.

¶11

The Apex Court in Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab, Laws (SC)-2012-9-50 has observed that if the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, 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.

¶12

In Narendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pleased to sum up the guidelines in this regard. The Apex Court has opined that no doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. Further, the Apex Court has observed that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶13

In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (2017) 9 SCC 641) , three judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad principles for exercising the inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant extract is quoted hereinbelow:

¶14

"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."

¶15

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007 , also relied upon the aforesaid authority.

¶16

In the present case also, the parties have arrived at a settlement. They have filed the compromise in the lower court which has been verified by the lower court. But the same could not be

¶17

permitted as some of Sections were found to be noncompoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

As the parties have amicably settled their dispute in Session Trial No.1646 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2017 (State Versus Gyan Chand and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 308 I.P.C. I.P.C., P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh, pending in the court of of Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh, the compromise has been verified by the lower court, hence, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

¶19

In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserves to be quashed.

¶20

The charge-sheet dated 18.05.2017 and cognizance order dated 19.06.2017 as well as the entire prosecution aginst the applicants in the above mentioned case stand quashed.

¶21

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 Radhika

¶23

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.02.10 17:31:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyan Chand and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Chand and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Ajay Chauhan Vs Union of India and Another

Parmajeet Kaur@ Pammi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamim Vs State of Up and Another

Anil Kumar Nishad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Anuradha Singh @ Annu Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another