Allowed

Vivek @ Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant applied under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 IPC due to a compromise executed between parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding settlements in private disputes, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings pending against the applicant are quashed.

Vivek @ Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 951 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek @ Vivek Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

The prayer sought by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.2690 of 2022 (State vs. Vivek and others), arising out of chargesheet No.56/2019 dated 5.2.2019 having Case Crime No.980 of 2018, under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, DistrictAgra, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra on the basis of compromise executed between the parties on 06.12.2022.

¶8

On the earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 had directed the applicants to appear before the concerned court along with the compromise deed and get the compromise verified. In compliance of aforesaid order, the contesting parties have appeared before the court concerned for verification of compromise, whereby the court concerned verified the compromise deed its covenants and its signatories by order dated 3.2.2023 in the presence of their respective counsels. Order of verification of compromise dated 3.2.2023 is annexed as Annexure-SA-1 along with the supplementary affidavit filed today. It has been mentioned in verification order that the contesting parties have put their signatures on the compromise before the court concerned and they have stated that this compromise has been executed out of their free will and sweet will and there is no compulsion on them in executive this compromise deed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and they have settled down the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, under these changed circumstances, the entire proceeding pending against the applicants may be quashed in the light of compromise jotted down

¶10

between the parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

¶12

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675. (ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303. (iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.

¶13

(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.

¶14

(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

¶15

Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ", decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

¶16

i. "Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶17

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.

¶18

iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under

¶19

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

¶20

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;

¶21

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;

¶22

vi. In the 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 appropriately 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;

¶23

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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

¶24

viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶28

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and difference, the Court deems it proper and to meet the ends of justice that the proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.

¶29

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands ALLOWED. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicants, are hereby quashed.

¶30

Let a copy of the order may be transmitted to the concerned lower court within 20 days.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 M. Kumar

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek @ Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek @ Vivek Kumar 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

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

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Smt. Hemlata and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anjana Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another