The Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings based on a compromise and said that 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.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajeev Mishra passed this order while hearing an application filed by Virendra Kumar Singh.
The Court noted that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.12.2011, a prompt FIR dated 04.12.2011 was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Shiv Kumar and was registered as Case under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Varanasi.
In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely (1) Virendra Singh, (2) Prashant Singh and (3) Rahul Singh have been nominated as named accused.
After the aforementioned FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of the concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, he examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C including the injured. 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 all the three named accused.
He, accordingly, submitted the police report/charge sheet dated 23.12.2011, in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, whereby named accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC.
Upon submission of the aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon the 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.
Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions in compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, Sessions Trial under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Badagaon, District-Varanasi came to be registered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The Sessions Judge, Varanasi framed charges under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC against the charge sheet accused.
During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at, 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 18.05.2024.
On the basis of above, applicants, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of aforementioned Sessions Trial in view of the compromise entered into by the parties.
On the above premise, the counsel for applicants in both the applications submitted that the dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not against the 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, a compromise deed was filed before Court below, which has been verified by Court below in Sessions Trial.
As such, the compromise entered into by the parties has been acted upon. Rishabh Narayan Singh, the counsel for applicant-Virendra Kumar Singh contends that since there are cross FIRs in respect of the same occurrence and even if the compromise entered into by the parties in Sessions Trial has not been specifically verified, yet the matter can be decided on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties in connected Sessions Trial.
To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 and on basis thereof, he submitted that though the parties have entered into compromise in both the cases but the compromise has been verified by Court below in one of the Sessions Trial yet the proceedings of other Sessions Trial can be terminated on the basis of compromise as the compromise entered into by the parties has to be treated as an effective compromise so as to bring all disputes to an end.
Furthermore, the settlement arrived at by the parties is a common settlement. The said facts assumes importance as cross FIRs have been lodged from both the sides in respect of the same occurrence. The case in hand is covered by the observation made by Apex Court in paragraph 15.4 of the report in State of M.P Vs Laxmi Narain (Supra) It is then contended by the respective 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.
Counsel for applicants thus submitted that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of applicants. They, therefore, contend that the applications are liable to be allowed.
Per contra, the AGA for State-opposite party-1 and the respective counsels for the first informant in both the applications submitted that they have no objection to the prayer made by the counsel for applicants. They submitted that once the first informant-opposite party-2 in both the applications has himself entered into a compromise with accused-applicants, which compromise has also been acted upon and verified by Court below in connected case, therefore, they cannot have any grievance, in case, the applications are allowed by the Court in terms of the compromise so entered into by the parties.
“Having heard the counsel for the parties in both the applications, the A.G.A for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of record, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above and the observations made by the Apex Court as aforementioned, the Court finds that there does not exist any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. There are cross FIRs in respect of the same occurrence. The injured have not sustained such injury, which can be said to be grievous or fatal. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-applicants are 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,” the Court observed while allowing the applications.
“The entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal cases i.e Sessions Trial under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Varanasi now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Varanasi and Sessions Trial under Sections 336, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Badagaon, District-Varanasi now pending in the Court of A Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act, Varanasi are, hereby, quashed,” the Court ordered.