Allowed

Sunil Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2023A482/22572/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and a cognizance order based on a verified compromise deed between the applicant and the victim, citing Apex Court precedents on quashing non-compoundable offences in private disputes.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet dated 8.5.2021, entire criminal proceeding Case No.7076/9 of 2017, and cognizance order dated 02.11.2002 were quashed.

Sunil Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171961

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22572 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Gautam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

¶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 8.5.2021 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.7076/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Shah Nawaj Rana and another) arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2001, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar and also to quash the cognizance order dated 02.11.2002 on the basis of compromise, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

With respect to the incident dated 20.2.2001 an FIR, being Case Crime No. 40 of 2001, has been filed lodged on behalf of the opposite party No.2. During trial both the parties have entered into the compromise. On the request made on behalf of both the parties this Court has relegated them before the trial court for verification of the compromise vide order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 12287 of 2023. For ready reference the order dated 10.4.2023 is quoted herein below :-

¶9

"Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sanjay Srivastava, counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the proceeding in Case No. 7076/9 of 2017 (State vs. Shah Nawaj Rana and another), Case Crime No. 40 of 2001, under Section 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Muzaffar Nagar as well as chargesheet dated 8.5.2001 and cognizance order dated 25.5.2001.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have reconciled their differences and a compromise

¶13

has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed dated 28.2.2023 has been annexed as Annexure 4 to this affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case against the applicants. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the applicants before the Court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

¶14

Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶16

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶17

The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶18

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

¶20

In pursuance of the order dated 10.4.2023, compromise filed by the parties have been verified by learned trial court, vide order dated 15.05.2023 (page 38 of paper book). Applicants have preferred instant application, annexing the verification order dated 15.05.2023, to quash criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise verification order. Having been dissatisfied with the order dated 15.05.2023, while entertaining the instant matter this Court has passed the following order dated 19.7.2023 directing to learned counsel for the parties to file appropriate application/affidavit in compliance of previous order dated 10.04.2023. For ready reference the order dated 19.7.2023 is quoted herein below :-

¶21

"Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava on behalf of

¶22

informant, is taken on record. When the case is listed next his name may also be shown as counsel for the opposite party.

¶23

Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey for the applicant, learned AGA as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava for opposite parties.

¶24

The present application u/s 482 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case no. 7076 /9 of 2017 (State Vs. Shah Nawaj Rana and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 40 of 2001, under Section 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Mansoorpur, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar, in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶25

It has been submitted that earlier the applicants have approached this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 12287 of 2023 in which this Court vide order dated 10.4.2023 has passed the following order :-

¶26

"In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the parties have appeared before the trial court and a date has been fixed for verification and thereafter matter was compromised and the trial court has passed the orders dated 24.4.2023 and 15.5.2023, in this respect. He prays that in view of the orders passed by the trial court, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶29

On perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 10.4.2023 in Application U/s 482 No. 12287 of 2023, it transpires that specific direction was given to the Court concerned for recording the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not, however, from perusal of the order sheet filed by the applicants, it appears that the said direction has not been followed.

¶30

Confronted with the said fact, learned counsel for the parties submit that before the trial court, 26.7.2023 is the next date fixed and they pray that matter may be adjourned till then.

¶31

As prayed, list on 8.8.2023, as fresh, in order to enable the counsel for the parties to file an appropriate application / affidavit in the meantime."

¶32

In pursuance of the order dated 19.07.2023, counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit appending fresh compromise verification order dated 01.08.2023 and copies of statement made by parties concerned. Certified copies of order dated 01.08.2023 and statements of parties concerned are collectively filed as Annexure No. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Perusal of the verification order dated 01.08.2023 reveals that Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.7/ Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar has verified the compromise in presence of both the parties who have been identified by their respective counsels. Learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) has observed that conditions of the compromise has been spelled out in open court to the parties who have admitted that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress and prayed for quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, in the eventuality of settlement of dispute between the parties and the verification order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.7/ Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar 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.

¶34

To quash the cognizance/summoning order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./chargesheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:-

¶42

" 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;

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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;

¶45

(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;

¶46

(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;

¶47

(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;

¶48

(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;

¶49

(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;

¶50

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if

¶51

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

¶52

(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."

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

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 8.5.2021 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.7076/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Shah Nawaj Rana and another) arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2001, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar and the cognizance order dated 02.11.2002, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, is hereby quashed .

¶56

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

¶57

Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Md Faisal

¶58

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

Sunil Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Gautam and Another 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

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil Ahmad Hashmi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shriman Shukla @ Saurabh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Puri Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another