Allowed

Rakesh @ Bablu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023A482/33422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the court quashed pending criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute where parties had amicably settled their differences and verified the compromise deed before the trial court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the frivolous nature of the dispute and settlement justified quashing the chargeable offences.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2011 arising from Case Crime No. 48 of 2011 under Sections 326, 324, 34, 323, 307, 380, 504, 506 IPC are quashed.

Rakesh @ Bablu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33422 of 2022 Applicant :- Rakesh @ Bablu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manphool Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Bind

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Maphool Singh Gaur, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. It is a family dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that a written compromise has taken place between the parties on 10.08.2022. Copy of the compromise deed is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed along with present application. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 directed the parties to appear before the court below for verification of compromise and in compliance of the same, the parties had appeared before the trial court, who were duly identified by their respective counsels and as per report of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad, the compromise was verified on 28.02.2023.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 have not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶7

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraph no. 15 is quoted herein below:-

¶8

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

¶9

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶10

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved

¶11

heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶12

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶13

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶14

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶15

In Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to sum up and lay down the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between parties and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.PC. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement in the following words: -

¶16

" 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of

¶17

the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶18

29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶19

(i) ends of justice, or

¶20

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

¶21

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶22

29.3 Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶23

29.4 On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶24

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

¶25

29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also

¶26

be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶27

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

¶28

In view of the aforesaid fact, since the applicants are sons of late Kashmir Singh, who is real brother of opposite party no. 2 and there was dispute between two real brothers and now the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties had already been verified by the Court below, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

¶29

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2011 (State vs. Kashmir Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2011, under Sections 326, 324, 34, 323, 307, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-Ist, Farrukhabad are hereby quashed.

¶30

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 sailesh

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh @ Bablu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh @ Bablu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Prakash Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Koli Vs State of U.P.and Another

Pinku @ Shyam Govind Pathak and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaluwa and an 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another