Neutral Citation No.
- 2024:AHC:16678
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17349 of 2023
Applicant :- Kuldeep And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Reena Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Ms. Reena Pal, learned counsel for applicants and Shri H.P. Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and
perused the record.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the parties have settled their
dispute amicably outside the Court and the parties had arrived at compromise.
3. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 directed the applicants to appear through
their counsel and opposite party no.2 to appear before the Court concerned and file
compromise deed for verification.
4. As per report of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahar dated
24.05.2023, the compromise was verified by the trial Court. It is contended that
since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite
party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be
served in keeping it pending.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. 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
paragraphs are quoted herein below:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred
to herein above, it is observed and held as under:
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;
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;
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;
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;
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."
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the parties have amicably settled their
dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been
verified by the Trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be
allowed.
8. Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and quash the
entire proceeding including charge-sheet dated 24.05.2022 along with entire order-
sheet in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station- Bhawan Bahadur Nagar,
District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Special
(SC/ST Act),Bulandshahar are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 31.1.2024
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMAKANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
