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

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128781

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25384 of 2021

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh,Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants along with the charge sheet dated 25.07.2016 and the cognizance order dated 05.10.2016 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 charge sheet dated 25.07.2016 and summoning order dated 05.10.2016 passed by ACJM 1st Firozabad in Case no. 253/16 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 339/16, u/s 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad which is pending in the Court of ACJM 1st, Firozabad.

¶10

As per version of F.I.R. present applicants (accused) have thrashed the complainant (opposite party No. 2) and threatened for life. In the matter, charge sheet dated 25.07.2016 has been submitted under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 325 I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad and the cognizance order has been passed on 05.10.2016.

¶11

During pendency of the present application parties have shown their willingness for amicable settlement, as such, this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2022, 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. For ready reference order dated 14.02.2022 is quoted herein below.

¶12

"Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶13

It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicants that parties have entered into compromise and settled their disputed amicably and now there remains no dispute. It is further stated that the parties have filed compromise deed in the trial Court and the same is annexed as annexure no.4 in the affidavit accompanied with the present application.

¶14

Trial Court is directed to verify the compromise deed between the parties and submit verification report within three weeks.

¶15

List in the last week of March, 2022 as fresh along-with verification report."

¶16

In pursuance of the order dated 14.02.2022, learned Additional District and Session's Judge, Firozabad has submitted the verification report dated 06.12.2022 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.

¶17

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 judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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:-

¶25

"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;

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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;

¶28

(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;

¶29

(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;

¶30

(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;

¶31

(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;

¶32

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially

¶33

civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

¶34

(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

¶35

(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."

¶36

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 05.06.2016 being Case Crime No. 339/16 and charge sheet dated 25.07.2016 under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad and the entire proceeding in Sessions trial No. 253 of 2016 (State Versus Manoj Kumar & others) may be quashed.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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. 253 of 2016 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2016 I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi, District Firozabad which is pending in the Court of Additional District & Session's

¶40

Judge, Firozabad and the charge sheet dated 25.07.2016 are hereby quashed.

¶41

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

¶42

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶43

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

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