Allowed

Mata Prasad and and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2023A482/16992/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified settlement between parties in a private dispute, despite charges including POCSO offences, citing principles laid down in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet and entire proceedings under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 and POCSO sections 7/8 are quashed against all applicants except the deceased applicant no. 7.

Mata Prasad and and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117592

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16992 of 2017

¶4

Applicant :- Mata Prasad And And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Ajay Dubey,Ajay Kumar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhavya Sahai,Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari,Munesh Kumar Upadhyay,Shikha Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶7

Second supplementary counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants, is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Dubey learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Alok Singh, holding brief of Sri Munesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that it is a private dispute between the parties and they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a compromise had taken place between them on 29.11.2021, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.4.2022. This Court vide order dated 19.4.2023 had directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned and file compromise for verification.

¶10

As per order dated 11.5.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (POCSO) Act, Court No. 27, Agra, parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the trial Court on 28.4.2023. Lastly, it is submitted that since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:-

¶13

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

¶14

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of 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

¶15

amongst themselves;

¶16

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;

¶17

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;

¶18

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;

¶19

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."

¶20

In view of the aforesaid fact, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the Trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

¶21

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 7, Tukman has died on 17.5.2022.

¶22

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of S. S. T. No. 380 of 2017;

¶23

State vs. Mata Prasad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 593 of 2016, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 354, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and Sections-7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Etmadpur, District-Agra, pending in the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Agra, are hereby quashed against all the applicants except applicant no. 7, Tukman, who is said to have died on 17.5.2022.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 HR

¶25

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mata Prasad and and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Prasad and and 9 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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kamlawati Devi and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ramdei and Others

M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Zamil and Others

Nilay Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another