The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC following a compromise between the applicant and the complainant in a case involving Sections 323, 406, and 504 IPC.
Entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4165 of 2019 are quashed and the application is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6915 of 2022
Applicant :- Dharmendra Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Nath Singh,Abhay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amaresh Yadava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Learned counsel for parties submits that parties have entered into compromise and prayed that the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4165 of 2019 (State Vs. Dharmenda Yadav) arising out of charge-sheet dated 1.10.2019 in Case Crime No.87 of 2019, under Sections 323, 406 and 504 I.P.C. Police Station-Derapur, District-Rama Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in pursuance of compromise deed dated 24.12.2021 may be quashed.
Inherent Power of the High Court and Quashing of proceedings for non compoundable offences :-
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court while considering conflict between Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149, on the issue of exercising power under section 482 CrPC in regard to above referred point in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others:(2019)5 SCC 688 and, after considering earlier judgments Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471; Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; and 2019 SCC Online SC 7, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh :(2019) 4 SCC 268; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar:(2019) 5 SCC 570,clarified Narinder Singh (supra) and held that :-
"15 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:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320of 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;
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;
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;
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 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;
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 impart 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." (Emphasis supplied)
Considering that the parties have entered into compromise in view of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan (supra), entire proceedings of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4165 of 2019 (State Vs. Dharmenda Yadav) arising out of charge-sheet dated 1.10.2019 in Case Crime No.87 of 2019, under Sections 323, 406 and 504 I.P.C. Police Station-Derapur, District-Rama Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat), are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.
Learned counsel for parties on instruction agreed that they will pay Rs.5,000/- within one week by way of Draft in favour of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 23.9.2022
SB
(Serial No.7 out of 512 fresh cases)
Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.09.23 16:48:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC can be quashed based on a compromise in cases arising from Sections 323, 406, and 504 IPC.
Whether the High Court exercised its power correctly under Section 482 CrPC considering the nature of the offences and settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and othersApplied¶7
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others: (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabExplained¶6
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu KewatExplained¶6
State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat (2014) 4 SCC 149 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶6
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. DeepakReferred¶6
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. ManishReferred¶6
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307 · Who else cites this
J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana KurupReferred¶6
J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer SinghReferred¶6
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of GujaratReferred¶6
Parbatbhai AAhir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan SinghReferred¶6
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kalyan Singh: (2019) 4 SCC 268 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv GurjarReferred¶6
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dhruv Gurjar: (2019) 5 SCC 570 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharmendra Yadav and 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
