Princepal Singh @ Prince Dhawan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98322

Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42003 of 2022

Applicant :- Princepal Singh @ Prince Dhawan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Sri Deepak Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the parties had settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a written compromise has taken place between the parties on 18.6.2022. Copy of compromise is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of application. The opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants.

¶8

This Court vide order dated 16.8.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No.23596 of 2022 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of compromise.

¶9

In compliance of order dated 16.8.2022, both the parties had appeared before the court below on 17.11.2022 and filed copy of compromise for its verification. Both the parties were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified by the court below. The certified copy of order dated 17.11.2022 has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

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 hereinbelow:-

¶12

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

¶13

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;

¶14

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

¶15

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;

¶16

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;

¶17

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."

¶18

In view of the aforesaid fact, since 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

¶19

application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

¶20

Accordingly, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Case No.7601 of 2020 (State Vs. Princepal Singh @ Prince Dhawan and another), arising out of Case Crime No.651 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahar, is hereby quashed.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Kpy

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Princepal Singh @ Prince Dhawan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Princepal Singh @ Prince Dhawan and Another 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

Dileep and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Batasiya Devi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.

Dayaram Yadav (Vakil) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Najmeen and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Dilshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others