Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Anil Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1335 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 16426 of 2023]
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section(s) 364, 147, 148, 149 and 323 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Kidnapping, rioting and hurt – Common object – Appellant is an injured victim qua alleged offence and original complainant qua FIR – From materials placed on record and arguments advanced, it can safely be concluded that Appellant neither entered into any settlement with accused persons nor was courting any such idea – High Court has certainly erred by quashing FIR and criminal proceeding(s) emanating from FIR on the basis of Settlement Agreement – High Court failed to notice that Appellant and original complainant was not a party to Settlement Agreement and nor was agreeable to such a course of action – Impugned Order neither secured ends of justice nor prevented abuse of process of law – Impugned Order set aside – Proceedings emanating from FIR restored to file of Trial Court. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is arising out of order dated 06.04.2023 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
Proceedings emanating from FIR i.e., Case No. 1288 of 2003, stand restored to the file of the Trial Court, with a direction to Trial Court to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one year, in view of the fact that FIR pertains to the year 1999.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR and proceedings, restoring them to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal (!) . - The Appellant was an injured victim and original complainant; he was not a party to the Settlement Agreement; High Court erred by quashing based on that agreement (!) (!) . - Inherent power to quash is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC; quashing depends on securing ends of justice and preventing abuse of process, with considerations on the nature and gravity of the crime and whether settlement justifies quashing (Gian Singh principles) (!) (!) . - Offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be quashed even with settlement; private or civil-flavoured cases may be quashed if continuation would be oppressive and justice requires ending the case (!) . - The case involved non-compoundable offences under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 364; the settlement between accused and Respondent No. 5 did not include the injured victim, affecting the legality of quashing (!) (!) . - The High Court’s 2nd Settlement Order directing quashing based on the 28-09-2022 agreement was found erroneous; proceedings were restored (!) . - The Trial Court’s initial observation acknowledged non-compoundable nature of some offences and that the injured party/complainant was not a party to the settlement (!) . - The judgment cites Gian Singh (Supra) to emphasize that the ends of justice and abuse of process considerations guide quashing under inherent power (!) .
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) bearing number 38114 of 2022, titled ‘Jitendra Mishra @ Sanjay and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.’ (the “Impugned Order”).
3. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein lodged a First Information Report on 07.08.1999 bearing number 966 of 1999 under Section(s) 364, 147, 148, 149 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (the “Accused Persons”) alleging inter alia that (i) the Appellant and Respondent No. 5 were beaten-up and accordingly, injured by Accused Persons who were wielding guns, rifles, revolvers and pistols; and (ii) Respondent No. 5 was further abducted by the Accused Persons (the “FIR”).
4. The matter was investigated by the police and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against the Accused Persons qua offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC (the “Chargesheet”). Pursuant to the filing of the Chargesheet, Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tirwa, District, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences and inter alia issued process to the Accused Persons; and rejected objections filed by the Accused Persons vide order(s) dated (a) 29.11.1999; and (b) 18.04.2000 in Criminal Cases No. 1265 of 1999 and 1264 of 1999 (the “Summoning Order”).
5. Aggrieved, the Accused Persons preferred (i) a criminal revision petition assailing inter alia the Summoning Order (the “Revision Petition”); and (ii) an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of the Chargesheet before the High Court (the “Quashing Petition”). Pertinently, vide an order dated 28.05.2010, the High Court dismissed both (i) the Revision Petition; and (ii) the Quashing Petition (the “1st HC Order”).
6. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad (the “Trial Court”) for issuance of non-bailable warrants (“NBWs”) against Accused Persons. Vide an order dated 17.01.2020, the Trial Court ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants. On 28.09.2022, during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court, the Accused Persons brought a settlement agreement dated 28.09.2022 executed inter alios the Accused Person(s) and Respondent No. 5 (the “Settlement Agreement”) to the notice of the Trial Court. Accordingly, an application was preferred by the Accused Persons under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings emanating from the FIR on the basis of the Settlement Agreement (the “1st Settlement Application”). However, vide an order dated 23.12.2022 in the 1st Settlement Application, the High Court directed the Trial Court to consider the Settlement Agreement; and pass appropriate order(s) within a period of 1 (one) month (the “2nd HC Order”).
7. Pursuant to the 2nd HC Order, Trial Court considered the Settlement Agreement; and vide an order dated 23.01.2023, the Trial Court observed inter alia that (i) the Chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 are non-compoundable in nature; (ii) the FIR was lodged by the Appellant herein who was an injured person, yet wasn’t made a party to the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) that the Appellant had filed an objection to the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid the Trial Court rejected the Settlement Agreement (the “Underlying Order”).
8. Aggrieved by Underlying Order, another application was preferred by the Accused Persons before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of (i) the FIR; and (ii) the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR on the basis of the Settlement Agreement (the “2nd Settlement Application”). The High Court vide the Impugned Order allowed the 2nd Settlement Application. The operative par
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, based on genuine compromises, considering the natu....
The power to quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the parties depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous and serious offences, especially those under Section 376 IPC, cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the parties, as they hav....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
