Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023A482/15895/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Allahabad High Court, considering a verified compromise and Supreme Court guidelines, allowed the petitioner's petition to quash criminal proceedings involving assault and causing voluntary injury, citing the remote possibility of conviction and the resolution of the private dispute.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 157 of 2022, the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2022, and the cognizance and summoning order dated 07.01.2023 against the applicants are quashed.

Natthulal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157541

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15895 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Natthulal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rashid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record on board. No one is present for the opposite party no. 2 (first informant).

¶7

The present applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 157 of 2022 (State vs. Panchamlal and others) arising out of case crime no. 210 of 2022, under Section 452 323, 506 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Tilhar, DistrictShahjahanpur and the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2022 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 07.01.2023.

¶8

Opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0210 dated 03.04.2022, with respect to the incident took place on 01.04.2022 wherein all the four accused including the present applicants have barged into the house of the first informant and badly beaten him up with the stick and threatened him for life. After due investigation, charge sheet dated 29.04.2022 has been filed against three accused, namely, Panchamlal, Bhimsen and Natthulal, however, fourth accused, namely, Shivani has not been arraigned.

¶9

As per supplementary affidavit dated 22.04.2022, Pancham Lal, who was arraigned as an accused in charge sheet has died on 12.04.2023, therefore, present application is being entertained on behalf of Natthu Lal s/o Shankar Lal and Bheemsen s/o Natthu Lal. In the aforesaid matter, cognizance/summoning order was passed on 17.01.2023 and before initiation of the trial both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and inked compromise dated 10.04.2023.

¶10

On the request made on behalf of the applicant, this Court, vide order dated 02.05.2023, relegated the parties before the court

¶11

below for the verification of the compromise. For ready reference, order dated 02.05.2023 is being quoted herein below:-

¶12

"It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the parties have compromised their dispute outside Court and reduced the terms of settlement to writing on affidavit on 14.04.2023. The attention of this Court has been invited to a photostat copy of the compromise recorded between the parties dated 14.04.2023. It is a compromise engrossed on a general stamp paper worth Rs. 100/and notorized.

¶13

Let a properly done compromise be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur in Case No. 157 of 2022, State of U.P. vs. Pancham Lal and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2022) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 325 IPC P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, within a week. The Magistrate, upon presentation of the compromise, will verify the same by the date fixed, without fail, and, forward a copy thereof to this Court along with a certified copy of his order, verifying the compromise.

¶14

List this matter as fresh again on 16.05.2023.

¶15

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 157 of 2022, State of U.P. vs. Pancham Lal and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2022) under Sections 452, 323, 506, 325 IPC P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, pending in Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.

¶16

This order will, however, not hinder the Magistrate in verifying the compromise.

¶17

Let this order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur through the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the compromise application was, in fact, filed on 10.04.2023, however, inadvertently same has been mentioned as 14.04.2023 in the order dated 02.05.2023.

¶19

In pursuance of the order dated 02.05.2023, learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur has submitted its verification report dated 19.06.2023 appended with the verification order dated 13.06.2023. In its report dated 19.06.2023 date of compromise has been shown as 10.04.2023. It is observed in the report and the verification order that both the parties have been

¶20

identified by their respective counsels and the compromise has been verified, accordingly, in the presence of the parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have buried the hatchet and now there is no grudges against each other, therefore, criminal case initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged on behalf of opposite party no. 2 may be quashed in pursuance of the compromise, which has been duly verified by the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur. To quash the order impugned as well as entire criminal proceedings, 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 a recent 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

¶30

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 noncompoundable.

¶31

(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;

¶32

(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;

¶33

(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;

¶34

(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 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

¶38

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

¶39

(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."

¶40

Having considered he compromise verification order, 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 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 proceedings of Case No. 157 of 2022 (State vs. Panchamlal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 2022, under Section 452 323, 506 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur and the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2022 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 07.01.2023 against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶42

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

¶43

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Pkb/

¶44

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natthulal 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

Pritam @ Atul Kumar Kanaujiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and 5 Others

Smt. Shabana Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maksud Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alok @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others