Allahabad High Court

Rajendra Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 September, 2024

Author:
Rajeev Misra

Bench:
Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154562

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10477 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajendra Pandey And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Kumar,Surya Prakash Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gauri Dubey,Gautam Dubey

Connected with

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9077 of 2024

Applicant :- Gopal Pandey Alias Suneel Pandey And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Dubey,Gautam Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Surya Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants-Rajendra Pandey And 2 Others, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Gautam Dueby, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

2. I have also heard Mr. Gautam Dubey, the learned counsel for applicants-Gopal Pandey @ Suneel Pandey And 2 Others, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Surya Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

3. Perused the record.

Facts pertaining to Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C
. No. 10477 of 2024 (
Rajendra Pandey And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
)

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident dated 12.10.2021, a delayed FIR dated 13.01.2022 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Munni Devi and was registered as Case Crime No. 0008 of 2022, under
Sections 325
,
,
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Gomti Commissionerate Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, three persons namely Rajendra Pandey, Sujeet and Neha Pandey (the applicants herein) were nominated as named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII
Cr.P.C
. During course of investigation, he examined the first informant and other witnesses under
Section 161
Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie found to be established against named accused. He, accordingly, submitted the police report/charge sheet dated 20.03.2022, in terms of
Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C., whereby named accused were charge sheeted under
Sections 323
,
and
IPC.

6. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under
Section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned, vide order dated 02.09.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII/F.T.C. J.D.-II, Varanasi in Consequential Case No. .... of 2022 (
State Vs. Rajendra Pandey and Others
) arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under
Sections 323
,
and
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Varanasi.

7. During the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. The terms of the compromise were subsequently, reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 21.02.2024. Photo copy of the same is on record at page 48 of the paper book.

8. On the basis of above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.

9. Present application came up for admission on 16.05.2024 and this Court passed the following order:-

"Sri Chitranshu Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gautam Dubey, learned counsel for the private opposite party no.2 and Sri Chabi Pal Singh learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

Present application under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8 of 2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.09.2022 under
Section 323
,
,
IPC, Police Station Sindhaura, District Varanasi on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that the parties have settled their dispute arising out of offence punishable under
section 323
,
,
IPC on the basis of compromise dated 21.02.2024 which is as Paper Book No. 48 and 49.

Office is directed to send the original compromise to the court concerned immediately for verification.

Let the said compromise deed be verified by the court concerned for which the parties are directed to appear before the court concerned within one month.

Put up this case as fresh along with Application U/s 482 No. 9077 of 2024 on 15.07.2024 along with supplementary affidavit annexing thereto a certified copy of the aforesaid verified compromise deed.

Till the next date of listing, proceeding of Criminal Case No. 8 of 2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.09.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 8 of 2022 under
Section 323
,
,
IPC, Police Station Sindhaura, District Varanasi pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-7, District Court Varanasi shall remain stayed."

10. Subsequent to above order dated 16.05.2024, parties appeared before Court below for verification of the compromise so entered into by them.

11. Court below, vide order dated 15.07.2024, has verified the compromise entered into by the parties.

12. Furthermore, Court below, vide letter dated 13.09.2024, has sent the photo copy of the compromise, the statement of first informant and accused as well as the copy of the order dated 15.07.2024.

Facts pertaining to Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C
. No. 9077 of 2024 (
Gopal Pandey Alias Suneel Pandey And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
)

13. Record shows that in respect of an incident dated 21.12.2021, a delayed FIR dated 22.12.2021 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Neha Pandey and was registered as Case Crime No. 0269 of 2021, under
Sections 354-B
,
,
,
and
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Varanasi (Rural). In the aforesaid FIR, three persons namely Gopal Pandey, Babbu Pandey and Kishan Pandey (the applicants herein) were nominated as named accused.

14. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII
Cr.P.C
. During course of investigation, he examined the first informant and other witnesses under
Section 161
Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie found to be established against named accused. He, accordingly, submitted the police report/charge sheet dated 04.02.2022, in terms of
Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C., whereby named accused were charge sheeted under
Sections 323
,
,
,
and
IPC.

15. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of his jurisdiction under
Section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. and simultaneously, the charge sheeted accused were summoned, vide order dated 31.10.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II/F.T.C. J.D.-II, Varanasi in Consequential Case No. 218186 of 2022 (
State Vs. Gopal Pandey and Others
) arising out of Case Crime No. 0269 of 2021, under
Sections 354-B
,
,
,
and
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Varanasi (Rural).

16. During the pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at by the parties, a compromise was entered into by the parties. The terms of the compromise were subsequently, reduced to writing by way of a compromise deed dated 21.02.2024. The original copy of the same is on record at page 54 of the paper book.

17. On the basis of above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.

18. Present application came up for admission on 20.03.2024 and this Court passed the following order:-

"Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 are present.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed his Vakalatnama today, let it be kept on record.

The parties are said to have arrived at a compromise. The compromise deed is appended at page 53 of the paper book. As sections involved are found to be compoundable/compoundable with the permission of the Court, hence the parties are directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today along with their compromise deed. If the parties appear before the trial court within the time stipulated along with the compromise deed, the trial court shall passed an appropriate order thereon and transmit a certified copy of the verified compromise deed along with the certified copy of the order passed thereon to this Court within 15 days thereafter.

List on 23.04.2024.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants."

19. Subsequent to above order dated 20.03.2024, parties appeared before Court below for verification of the compromise so entered into by them.

20. Court below, vide order dated 15.07.2024, has verified the compromise entered into by the parties.

21. Furthermore, Court below, vide letter dated 16.07.2024, has sent the photo copy of the application dated 29.05.2024 jointly submitted by the parties praying therein that that the proceedings of aforementioned criminal case be terminated in view of the compromise entered into by the parties and the order dated 15.07.2024, whereby the compromise entered into by the parties was verified.

22. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants in both the applications submit that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not against state. During 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. It is then contended by the respective learned counsel for applicants that since the parties have entered into a compromise, the chances of conviction of applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, are not only remote but also bleak. On the above conspectus, the respective learned counsel for applicants thus submit that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. They, therefore, contend that present applications are liable to be allowed.

23. Per contra, the learned Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the respective counsels for the first informant in both the applications submit that they have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants. They submit that once the first informant-opposite party-2 in both the applications has herself entered into a compromise with accused-applicants, which compromise has also been acted upon and verified by Court below, therefore, they cannot have any grievance, in case, present applications are allowed by this Court in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties.

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

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

ii.
Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
, (2008) 4 SCC 582

iii.

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
[2008)9 SCC 677]

iv.
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others
( 2008) 16 SCC 1

v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

vi.
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303

vii.

K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa
, (2013) 5 SCC 226

viii.

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

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

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

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

xvi.

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

xvii.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized 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 a conviction 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."

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:-

"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.

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."

25.
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 of the aforementioned report.

26. Having heard the counsel for the parties in both the applications, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above and the observations made by the Apex Court as aforemenitoned, 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-applicants 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.

27. In view of the discussion made above, the present applications succeed and are liable to be allowed.

28. They are, accordingly, allowed.

29. The entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal cases i.e. Consequential Case No. .... of 2022 (
State Vs. Rajendra Pandey and Others
) arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under
Sections 323
,
and
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Varanasi now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII/F.T.C.
J.D.-II, Varanasi and Consequential
Case No. 218186 of 2022 (
State Vs. Gopal Pandey and Others
) arising out of Case Crime No. 0269 of 2021, under
Sections 354-B
,
,
,
and
IPC, Police Station-Sindhaura, District-Varanasi (Rural) now pending in the Court ofAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II/F.T.C. J.D.-II, Varanasi are, hereby, quashed.

Order Date :- 21.9.2024

Vinay