Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023A482/21433/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings. The court relied on a verified compromise deed between the parties and the ten categories from Parbatbhai Aahir, finding the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet dated 21.11.2022, the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.516 of 2023, and the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023.

Aman Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162159

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21433 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet dated 21.11.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.516 of 2023 (State Vs. Aman Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0653 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 542, 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsa Ganj, District Firozabad and also to quash the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023 on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Shikohabad, Distirct Firozabad.

¶8

With respect to the incident dated 03.10.2022 at about 7:00 p.m. and FIR, being Case Crime No. 0653 of 2022 dated 04.10.2022, has been lodged by the opposite party No.2. Before the trial begins parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably. On the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, parties were relegated before the court below for verification of the compromise vide order dated 07.06.2023. Applicants were permitted to file the verification order before this Court. For ready refernce order dated 07.06.2023 is quoted herein below :-

¶9

" Sri Dhruva Dixit, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶11

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 516 of 2023 (State vs. Aman Kumar and others), under Sections 147, 148, 542, 308, 325, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No.653 of 2022, Police Station Sirsa

¶12

Ganj, District Firozabad.

¶13

It has been stated that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the court and have entered into the compromise. The compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed along with present application.

¶14

In view of above, it is provided that 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.

¶15

List on 20.07.2023, as fresh before appropriate Bench, on which date, the applicants shall file the report of the concerned Court regarding the verification of the compromise.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Learned counsel for applicants has filed supplementary affidavit, which has been duly served upon learned counsel for opposite party No.2 along with the certified copy of the verification order dated 23.06.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad.

¶19

Perusal of the verification order dated 23.06.2023 reveals that both the parties were appeared before the court below and identified by their respective counsels. It is admitted to both the parties that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. Learned trial court has verified the compromise and, accordingly, passed the verification order dated 23.06.2023.

¶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 A.C.J.M. 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

¶22

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

In a 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:-

¶29

" 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;

¶30

(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.

¶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

¶34

dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(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

¶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 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."

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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 charge sheet dated 21.11.2022 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.516 of 2023 (State Vs. Aman Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0653 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 542, 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Sirsa Ganj, District Firozabad, and the cognizance order dated 10.01.2023, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Shikohabad, Distirct Firozabad is hereby quashed .

¶44

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

¶45

Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Md Faisal

¶46

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar and 4 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

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

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