Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023A482/1028/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two cross-sectional applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The court observed that the parties, who were neighbors, had settled their differences outside court via executed compromise deeds. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing in private disputes, the court held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Case No.1093 of 2018 in the Court of CJM, Firozabad and the order dated 14.03.2022 in Complaint Case No.35 of 2017 in the Court of Special Judge, Firozabad, have been quash

Jaiveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1028 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jaiveer And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11028 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Smt. Gudiya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Misra

¶7

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Supplementary affidavits filed by learned counsel for the parties today in the Court is taken on record.

¶10

The present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in criminal case no.1093 of 2018, State Vs. Jaiveer and others under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 354, 336 IPC in case crime no.456 of 2017 police station-Firozabad North, District-Firozabad pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Application U/S 482 No.1028 of 2023 and to quash the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge(D.D.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Firozabad in complaint case no.35 of 2017 under sections 392, 393 IPC, police station-Uttar, District-Firozabad in Application U/S 482 No.11028 of 2022.

¶11

Since, this is a cross-case and in both the cases, parties have come to terms and decided to bury their differences and disputes, therefore, the present settlement application has been filed.

¶12

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that on 21.04.2017, an FIR was lodged by Smt. Gudiya under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 354, 336, 452 IPC, Police station-Firozabad North, District-Firozabad against Jaiveer, Bhure, Vidharam, Ganesh and 10-12 other persons. In the same breath, a complaint was moved by Smt. Chandrawati as complaint case no.35 of 2017 and the learned Special Judge, D.A.A. Court No.6, Firozabad have summoned Smt. Gudiya, Vipin Kumar, Madhav Prasad and Manish Sharma under sections 392, 393 IPC. In the aforesaid proceeding, co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022, have stayed the further proceedings of the complaint

¶13

case no.35 of 2017. Needless to mention here that Jaiveer and others approached this Court by filing Application U/S 482 No.1028 of 2023 mentioning therein that the parties have come to terms and in the cross-case, proceedings were stayed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Now, the contesting parties have come to terms and dissolved their differences and disputes outside the Court. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. The compromise deed dated 10.01.2022 is filed as Annexure-5 in Application U/s 482 No.1028 of 2023. Similarly, parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes outside the Court in Application U/S 482 No.11028 of 2022 and the compromise deed dated 14.03.2022 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the application.

¶14

On the earlier occasion, the Court has sent the contesting parties to get the matter verified by the court concerned and today, supplementary affidavits have been filed after verification in both the applications which is taken on record. The next submission is that the contesting parties are neighbour and on account of exaggeration of the incident, they have initiated the criminal proceeding against each other. Taking the help of elderly person of the village, and in order to attain their good, they have settled down their dispute outside the Court. Learned counsel for the parties submits that they have got instructions from their clients not to raise any objection in the event the proceeding initiated against each other is quashed in the light of the compromise. The fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by their respective counsels for the parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-

¶16

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675. (ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.

¶17

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

¶18

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

¶19

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

¶20

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

¶21

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the

¶22

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.

¶23

ii.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.

¶24

iii. 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;

¶25

iv. 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;

¶26

v. 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;

¶27

vi. 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;

¶28

vii. 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;

¶29

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;

¶30

ix. 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

¶31

x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) 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."

¶32

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶33

The present 482 Cr.P.C. applications stand allowed. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire criminal proceeding in criminal case no.1093 of 2018, State Vs. Jaiveer and others under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 354, 336 IPC in case crime no.456 of 2017 police stationFirozabad North, District-Firozabad pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Application U/S 482 No.1028 of 2023 and the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge(D.D.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Firozabad in complaint case no.35 of 2017 under sections 392, 393 IPC, police station-Uttar, District-Firozabad in Application U/S 482 No.11028 of 2022 are hereby quashed.

¶34

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

¶35

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 Sumit S

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer 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

Shahbul Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Sachin Mathur Vs State of U.P. and Another