Wholly considered Criminal Appeal regarding an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a compromise by the parties.
The entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1161 of 2021 (State vs. Chetram Pal and others) is quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
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. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1584 of 2023
Applicant :- Alok Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar,Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1161 of 2021 (State vs. Chetram Pal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.516 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Jalaun, District-Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in pursuance of compromise jotted down between the parties.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that this is the second 482 application on behalf of applicants. The applicants have already filed Application No.31765 of 2022, in which a direction was granted on 16.11.2022 to the concerned Magistrate to verify the compromise deed between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the court below has verified the compromise deed between the parties, its covenants and signatories vide order dated 14.12.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the parties have come to terms and after burying their differences have settled down the dispute outside the court, and the court below has affirmed the compromise between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-
(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.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION
TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697. (iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466. (v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
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 "PARBATBHAI 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:-
i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
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.
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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
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."
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 to meet the ends of justice that the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in
view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the entire proceeding of the present case against the applicants, is hereby quashed.
Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023 M. Kumar
Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of a settlement between the parties arising from a dispute with a predominant civil element.
Whether the inherent power of the High Court to quash a criminal proceeding is appropriate given the nature and gravity of the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and OthersReferred¶10
B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Dimpey Gujral and Others vs. Union Territory Through AdministratorReferred¶12
DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697 · Who else cites this
Narendra Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and OthersReferred¶13
NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav and Others vs. State of JharkhandReferred¶13
YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of GujaratExplained¶14
PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alok Pal And 2 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
