Allowed

Dusyant @ Chela and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2023A482/24558/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings where parties had reached a verified compromise. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since the offences were not heinous and arose from a private dispute, quashing the proceedings met the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 580 of 2018 and the charge sheet dated 19.07.2016 are quashed.

Dusyant @ Chela and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128781

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24558 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Dusyant @ Chela And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed along with the charge sheet and the cognizance order dated 3.09.2016 is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by Additional Session Judge Court no. 7 Firozabad and quash the entire criminal proceedings in S.T. No. 580/18, (State Vs. Dusyant @ Chela & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 340/16, u/s 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad which is pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge Court no. 7, Firozabad.

¶10

Facts culled out from the record on board are that opposite party No. 2 (Prem Singh) has lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 340 dated 5.06.2016 under Sections 323, 324, 405, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad with respect to the incident allegedly took place on 4.06.2016 alleging therein that the present applicants have thrashed Manoj (nephew of the present applicant) who has sustained grievous injuries. During the fracas one Dharmendra, who came to rescue the Manoj, has also sustained injury.

¶11

After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 19.07.2016 and cognizance order has been passed on 03.09.2016. During pendency of the present application parties have shown their willingness for amicable settlement, as such, this Court, vide order dated 28.02.2023, has referred the matter to the trial court permitting the parties to move a compromise application and called for the verification report as well on the said compromise.

¶12

For ready reference order dated 28.02.2023 is quoted herein below.

¶13

"Short Counter affidavit along with Parcha of Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 filed today is taken on record.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶15

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the order dated 04.09.2021 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 580 of 2018 (State Vs. Dusyant @ Chela and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 340/16, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Firozabad.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits on account of intervention of wellwishers of the applicants and opposite party no.2, they have settled their disputes and arrived at a compromise.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

¶18

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶19

Connect along with Application U/S 482 No. 25384 of 2021 and list on 31.03.2023.

¶20

Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶21

In pursuance of the order dated 28.02.2023, learned Additional District and Session's Judge Court No. 1 Firozabad has submitted the verification report dated 31.03.2023 with an averment that the contents of the compromise has been spelled out to both the parties who have understood the same and admitted the factum of the compromise and parties are duly identified by their respective counsels.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that presently there is no dispute between the parties and they have burried the hatchet. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following

¶23

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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:-

¶30

"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;

¶31

(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 noncompoundable.

¶32

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or compliant should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under

¶33

Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

¶34

(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;

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(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;

¶39

(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

¶40

(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

¶41

of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶42

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise and contended that now there is no dispute between the parties therefore the F.I.R. dated 5.06.2016 being Case Crime No. 340 and charge sheet dated 19.07.2016 under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad and the entire proceeding in Sessions trial No. 580 of 2018 (State Versus Dusyant) may be quashed.

¶43

All the Sections, under which present accuseds are implicated, are not severe in nature and the punishment is not more than seven years.

¶44

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.

¶45

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 in Sessions Trial No. 580 of 2018 (State Vs. Dusyant @ Chela & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 340/16, u/s 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad which is pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge Court no. 7, Firozabad and the charge sheet dated 19.07.2016 are hereby quashed.

¶46

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

¶47

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶48

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dusyant @ Chela and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dusyant @ Chela and 2 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

Gurdas and 2 Others Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.8 Lucknow and 2 Others

Santram Vs the Addl. Dist. Judge Ct. No. 2 Gonda and Others

Devesh Mani Tripathi Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another

Sudhir Mishra @ Atal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Singh Tomar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another