Allowed

Diwan Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023A482/11971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the applicants. The court quashed the case based on a verified compromise agreement between the parties, observing that continuing the trial would cause oppression and prejudice as the dispute was private in nature.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding of Case No.8493 of 2020 against the applicants is hereby quashed.

Diwan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163748

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11971 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Diwan Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit along with the certified copy of the compromise and verification order dated 17.08.2021, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA.

¶8

3 The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No.8493 of 2020 (State Vs. Diwan Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2020, under Sections 323 and 308 I.P.C. Police Station Saiyan, District Agra, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Agra.

¶9

With respect to the incident allegedly took place on 28.7.2020 at about 7:30 P.M. opposite party No.2 has lodged an FIR, being case crime no. 0115 of 2020 dated 28.07.2020. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants this Court, vide order dated 04.08.2021, has referred the matter before the court below for verification of the compromise. For ready reference order dated 04.08.2021 is quoted herein below :-

¶10

"Sri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 by filing vakalatnama alongwith short counter affidavit which is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Ankit Kapoor, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceeding of Case No.8493 of 2020(State vs. Diwan Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2020 under Section 323, 308 IPC, Police Station Saiyan, District Agra.

¶13

It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into the compromise. The compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this application.

¶14

Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 did not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶15

The applicants shall file an application along with the compromise deed before the concerned Court below within 15 days for verification of the compromise. On receiving the said application the Court below shall take steps for verification of the compromise, within 15 days from date of receiving application and compromise, and shall prepare a report. The parties on filing a suitable application shall also be given a certified copy of the report.

¶16

List in the week commencing 20.9.2021 before appropriate Bench showing name of Sri Ankit Kapoor as counsel for opposite party, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶18

This case shall not be treated as tied up/part heard to this Bench."

¶19

In pursuance of the order dated 04.08.2021 leanred Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Agra has submitted the verification report dated 17.08.2021 with an observation that both the parties have appeared before the trial court and stated that they have volunatarily entered into compromise without any duress. In presence of the parties compromise was verified by the court below.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification report submitted by the learned trial court verifying the compromise took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and and criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that now parties have buried the hatchet and there is no grudges against each other.

¶21

To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶22

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.

¶23

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.

¶24

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶25

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶26

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶27

In judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

¶28

" 15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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;

¶29

(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.

¶30

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant 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;

¶31

(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;

¶32

(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;

¶33

(vi) In 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 approximately 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

¶34

punishing persons for serious offences;

¶35

(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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶36

(viii) 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;

¶37

(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

¶38

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing 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."

¶39

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has nodded the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶40

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the

¶42

parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed . The entire criminal proceeding of Crl. Case No.8493 of 2020 (State Vs. Diwan Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2020, under Sections 323 and 308 I.P.C. Police Station Saiyan, District Agra, on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Agra, is hereby quashed .

¶43

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action.

¶44

Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Md Faisal

¶45

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Diwan Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwan Singh 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

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subodh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisar Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another