Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 189
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1335 OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 16426 of 2023]
ANIL MISHRA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2024.03.09
12:34:27 IST
Reason:
966 of 1999 under Section(s) 364, 147, 148, 149 & 323 of the
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 1 of 10
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
st
Petition; and (ii) the Quashing Petition (the “ 1 HC Order ”).
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 2 of 10
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
st
of the Settlement Agreement (the “ 1 Settlement Application ”).
st
However, vide an order dated 23.12.2022 in the 1 Settlement
Application, the High Court directed the Trial Court to consider
the Settlement Agreement; and pass appropriate order(s) within a
nd
period of 1 (one) month (the “ 2 HC Order ”).
nd
7. Pursuant to the 2 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
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 3 of 10
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
nd
Settlement Agreement (the “ 2 Settlement Application ”). The
nd
High Court vide the Impugned Order allowed the 2 Settlement
Application. The operative paragraph(s) of the Impugned Order
are reproduced as under:
“On behalf of the applicant, this application
is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
Case No. 1288 of 2003, Case Crime No. 966 of 1999
under Section 364, 147, 148, 149, 323 I.P.C., Police
Station Kotwali Farrukhabad: District
Farrukhabad which is under consideration of court
of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad
on the ground that the entire proceeding should be
cancelled on the basis of the agreement dated 28-
09-2022 between the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicants and
opposite party No. 3 states that a settlement
agreement has been reached between the parties on
date 28-09-2022 in which it is mentioned that a
First Information Report was lodged by the
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 4 of 10
complainant against unknown people. The
complainant has not taken the name of any accused
in his statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
It has also been mentioned in the said agreement
that the mutual relations between the two parties
have become quite cordial and there is no dispute of
any kind left between them. The attested copy of the
said agreement has been attached to this
application as Annexure 4.
Learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.
Md. Nadeem, learned counsel for opposite party
number 3, have stated that they want disposal of the
present case and do not want to pursue this issue
further, hence the entire subsequent proceedings
should be set aside. In support of his argument he
cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
2014 Law Suit (SC) 202, Yogendra Yadav & Ors.
Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Dimpey Gujral
W/o Vivek Gujral & Ors. Vs. Union Territory &
Ors. and drawn the attention of the Court towards
the said judgments.
Hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and the learned Additional Government Advocate
and examining the file and after considering the
above precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this application submitted under Section 482 CrPC
is eligible to be accepted.
Accordingly, this application is accepted and
the entire proceedings of the above mentioned case
are set aside.”
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 5 of 10
9. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
has submitted that the Appellant is an injured victim of the
alleged offence; and also, is the original complainant in relation
to the FIR. Accordingly, it has been vehemently contended before
us that the High Court erred in law as well as in facts by allowing
nd
the 2 Settlement Application. It was also submitted before us
that the Impugned Order suffers from perversity and illegality on
account of the fact that it fails to consider that the Appellant i.e.,
the original complainant, was neither a party to the Settlement
Agreement nor was amenable to such a course of action. In this
context, it was submitted that the High Court ought not to have
exercised its jurisdiction under 482 CrPC in favour of the
Accused Persons.
10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Accused Persons has submitted that the Accused Persons
entered into a settlement / compromise with Respondent No. 5
i.e., the principal victim who was allegedly abducted, and
accordingly, once Respondent No. 5 had settled the matter, there
was no justifiable cause to continue criminal proceedings against
the Accused Persons. Thus, it was submitted that the Impugned
Order, was a well-reasoned order, that warrants no interference
from this Court.
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 6 of 10
11. We have heard the counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record. Admittedly and undisputedly, the
Appellant herein is (i) an injured victim qua the alleged offence;
and (ii) the original complainant qua the FIR. Furthermore, from
the materials placed on record and the arguments advanced, it can
safely be concluded that the Appellant neither entered into any
settlement with the Accused Persons nor was courting any such
idea. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, we fail
to understand how the High Court proceeded to quash the FIR;
and the proceedings emanating thereof in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. This Court in Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 authoritatively laid down
principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC by High Courts vis-à-vis quashing of an FIR, criminal
proceeding or complaint. The same is reproduced as under:
“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus : the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding
or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with
the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any court. In what cases power to
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 7 of 10
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no category can
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and the offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or
the family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of
cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 8 of 10
continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.”
12. Thus, it is our considered opinion that the High Court has
certainly erred by quashing (i) the FIR; and (ii) the criminal
proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR on the basis of the
Settlement Agreement. The High Court failed to notice that the
Appellant i.e., an injured victim; and original complainant was
not a party to the Settlement Agreement and nor was agreeable to
such a course of action. Accordingly, we find that Impugned
Order neither secured the ends of justice nor prevented an abuse
of process of law, thus we find that the Impugned Order was
erroneous and contrary to principles laid down in Gian Singh
(Supra) .
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 9 of 10
13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is accordingly
allowed, and the Impugned Order is set aside. The proceedings
emanating from FIR i.e., Case No. 1288 of 2003, stand restored
to the file of the Trial Court, with a direction to the Trial Court to
dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of
one year, in view of the fact that the FIR pertains to the year 1999.
14. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 01, 2024
SLP(Crl.) No. 16426 of 2023 Page 10 of 10