AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of informant opposite party No. 2.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicants in Court today is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2012 (State Vs. Virendra Kumar Dwivedi and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 775A of 2012, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Orai, Jalaun.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 22.7.2012, a prompt F.I.R. dated 22.7.2012 was lodged by first informant/Santosh and was registered as Case Crime No. 775A of 2012, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Orai, Jalaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Virendra Kumar Dwivedi, and Rajendra have been nominated as named accused.
Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R. police proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 22.8.2012 against all the named accused persons i.e. applicants herein. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned and ultimately applicants have been summoned in consequential case number detailed above.
During pendency of above noted 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 17.12.2019 was drawn which has been verified by a notary. Same is on record as Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, a joint application dated 9.3.2021 was filed before court below praying therein that compromise deed accompaying the application be accepted on record. Copy of same has been brought on record as Annexure- S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. Court below vide order dated 9.3.2021 accepted above mentioned compromise deed on record. Certified copy of order dated 9.3.2021 has also been brought on record as Annexure-S.A. 2 to the supplementary affidavit. From perusal of injury reports of injured Virendra Kumar Dwivedi, Mahaveer Saran, Suneel Kumar, Mahendra Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Dalit Kumar, Prayag Narayan, Jitendra Kumar, Visheshwar Dayal, Ajeet Kumar which are on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit, it is explicitly clear that none of the injured has sustained grievious or fatal injuries. All injuries are simple.
On the aforesais premise, learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. During pendency of case before Court below, parties have amicably settled their dispute. As no orders have been passed by Court below on the basis of above mentioned compromise deed, applicants who are accused have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings of above mentioned criminal case in view of compromise so entered between parties.
It is further contended that once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 do not opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for applicant.
It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 that once informant himself has compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. Furthermore he does not dispute the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, 2011 (10) SCC 705
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC226
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466
Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2014 (9) SCC 653
C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389
C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and annother, 2017 (9) SCC 641
Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290
State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570
State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., 2019 (5) SCC 688
Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716
Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 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) has observed 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. 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.
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 judgement, which read as under:
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions 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. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
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.
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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 aconviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, the submissions made by the counsel for parties, and upon perusal of injury reports of injured, it cannot be said that criminality committed by applicants is a crime against society. Learned counsel for applicant is right in submitting that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Consequently,this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. The trial shall entail a futile pursuit resulting in loss of judicial time when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets Accordingly, application succeeds and is allowed. Proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2012 (State Vs. Virendra Kumar Dwivedi and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 775A of 2012, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Orai, Jalaun, are hereby quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.