This applicant filed a Section 482 CrPC application to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise. The court considered Supreme Court guidelines regarding quashing after settlement and allowed the application, quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
The entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 152 of 2023 is quashed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167253
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17679 of 2023
Applicant :- Saifee And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet dated 3.5.2022 and summoning order dated 7.1.2023 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 152 of 2023 (State Vs. Chhotu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 452, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, Police Station- Tilhar, DistrictShahjahanpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of some mis-understanding and misconception, the present criminal case was initiated against the applicants by the opposite party No. 2, however with the intervention of the respected members of both the families and society, parties have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and now they do have any grievance against each other. A settlement-agreement dated 27.4.2023 has also been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this application.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the parties are ready to appear before the court below for the verification of the said agreement dated 27.4.2023.
In view of the above, both the parties shall appear before the court below within a month on a date to be fixed by the court below and shall file a copy of the settlement-agreement, which shall be verified by the court below in presence of the parties and shall submit its report before this Court by the next date fixed.
Put up as fresh on 17.7.2023.
Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
their respective counsel. All the parties have filed their respective identity proof and, accordingly, the compromise has been verified by the court concerned.
(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675.
(ii ) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 667.
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.
(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
"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;
(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 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;
(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 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;
(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;
(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;
(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 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. "
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
vinay
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC following a compromise verified by the trial court.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is attracted even in private disputes where parties have settled differences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & OthersRelied on¶22
(2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶23
(2008) 9 SCC 667 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & OthersRelied on¶24
(2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gyan Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶25
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶25
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saifee And 4 Others
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
