Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2452

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27147 of 2024

Applicant :- Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Vir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dharm Vir Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Prashant Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicants-Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma and Sunil Kumar, who are charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant application and quash the entire Criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6291 of 2006, (State Vs. Ravi Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2006, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etah, on the basis of compromise dated 24.04.2024 entered into between the parties.

¶10

It is further prayed that during the pendency of the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6291 of 2006, (State Vs. Ravi Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2006, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Etah, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Etah may kindly be stayed. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

¶11

Record shows that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise deed dated 24.04.2024 was drawn. Subsequently, an application dated 24.04.2024 has been filed by first informantopposite party-2 before Court below duly supported by an

¶12

affidavit of the alleged victim with the prayer that the criminal case pending against applicant be decided in terms of compromise so entered into by the parties. Photo copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to the affidavit.

¶13

In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, applicant has approached this Court by means of present application, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case.

¶14

Present application came up for admission on 14.11.2024 and this Court passed the following order:-

¶15

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1-State and Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶16

2. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6291 of 2006 (State versus Ravi Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2006 registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Etah pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Etah.

¶17

3. It has been submitted that initially first information report was lodged against the applicants under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C., but the statement of alleged victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. is clearly contradictory to the allegations levelled in the first information report and the alleged victim has completely denied any such incident having ever occurred.

¶18

4. It is submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, there was no occasion to introduce Section 376 I.P.C. in the summoning order.

¶19

5. It is further submitted that during the course of proceedings, the parties have entered into a compromise dated 24.04.2024 which has been submitted before the trial court and the certified copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8. It is submitted that since, even prima facie provisions of Section 376 I.P.C. are not attracted.

¶20

6. In the present facts and circumstances, the compromise is directed to be verified.

¶21

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the basis of instructions admits the factum of compromise having been entered into between the parties.

¶22

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that compromise has already been filed before the trial court, direction is issued to the trial court for passing appropriate orders with regard to verification of the said compromise, expeditiously, preferably,

¶23

within a period of three weeks from the date certified copy of this order is brought on record of proceedings.

¶24

9. List this case on 06.01.2025, as fresh.

¶25

10. Trial court is also directed to submit a report to this Court on or before the next date of listing with regard to orders passed for verification of the compromise.

¶26

11. Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6291 of 2006 (State versus Ravi Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2006 registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Etah pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Etah shall remain stayed except for the purposes of verification of compromise."

¶27

Pursuant to above order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court, parties appeared before Court below for verification of compromise so entered into by the parties. First informantopposite party-2 filed an application dated 24.04.2024 duly supported by an affidavit of the alleged victim praying therein that the matter be decided in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. Court below, vide order dated 09.12.2024, verified the compromise so entered into by the parties. Court below has further sent the compromise verification report dated 11.12.2024 to this Court.

¶28

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not against state/society. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, referred to above, parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement, arrived at between the parties, compromise deed was filed before Court below, which has been verified by Court below. As such, the compromise entered into by the parties has been acted upon. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction of applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused, are not only remote but also bleak. As such, the continuation of criminal prosecution of applicant will only be a futile exercise. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for applicant thus submits that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicant. He, therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party1 and Mr. Prashant Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant. They submit that once the

¶30

first informant-opposite party-2 has himself entered into a compromise with accused-applicant, which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below, they cannot have any grievance, in case, the present application is decided by this Court, in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties.

¶31

Be that as it may, this Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:

¶32

i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

¶33

ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶34

iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

¶35

vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶36

viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

¶37

ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

¶38

xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

¶39

xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

¶40

xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

¶41

xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

¶42

xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶43

xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

¶44

xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021 .

¶45

xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414.

¶46

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra) , Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶47

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under:

¶48

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions

¶49

16.1. 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.

¶50

The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶51

16.2. 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.

¶52

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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;

¶53

16.4. 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;

¶54

16.5. 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;

¶55

16.6. 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;

¶56

16.7. 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;

¶57

16.8. 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;

¶58

16.9. 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

¶59

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8

¶60

and 16.9 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 of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶61

Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-

¶62

"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

¶63

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶64

In State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) , the Apex Court held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC cannot be sole basis for not quashing the proceedings. Court has to examine whether the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence for framing of charge under Section 307 IPC. The Court has further required to examine the weapons used and nature of injury and whether injury has been inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body, the previous antecedents of accused and whether they are absconding and how the compromise was got entered into by the parties are relevant factors, which must be considered. The above observations can be clearly delineated from the recital occurring in paragraphs 11 to 18

¶65

of the aforementioned report.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and in view of above and the observations made by the Apex Court as noted herein above, this Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicant is remote and bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

¶67

In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶68

It is, accordingly, allowed.

¶69

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6291 of 2006, (State Vs. Ravi Singh and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2006, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Dehat, District-Etah now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Etah are, hereby, quashed.

¶70

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Vinay

¶71

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

Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Singh @ Manu Varma and Another v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gajram and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bablu Alias Satish Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ekta Chauhan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mannan vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others