# Fakeera & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 394
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47061 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/fakeera-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47214
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing
of proceedings-On basis of Compromise-
Non-Compoundable
offences-
Sections
147, 323, 504 IPC- Keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly in
private dispute and differences it is deem
proper and meet to the ends of justice.
The proceeding of the aforementioned
case be quashed.

It is settled law that where the parties to a
dispute decide to end the criminal proceedings,
which are non-compoundable but not a heinous
offence and are private in nature, then the
inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.Pc can be
exercised to quash the criminal proceedings on
the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.

Criminal application allowed. (E-2)

Judgements/ Case law cited:-

## Text

394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
object which comprehends the mischief and
its remedy to which the enactment is
directed.?

35. This Court is of the considered
opinion that Sub Section (14) of Section 11
and the Fourth Schedule relatable to it, are
applicable
to
even
Arbitral
Tribunal
appointed by the parties themselves in terms
of their contract/agreement.

36. This Court is also in agreement
with the observations made by the various
High Courts quoted hereinabove, regarding
the question of "Sum in Dispute" which has
to be taken cumulatively as the claim and
counter claim and not calculated separately
as eventually only one of the parties to the
arbitration proceedings would most likely
succeed. If the claimant succeeds it would
be getting around 198 crores whereas if the
respondents succeed they would be getting
an amount of Rs.230 crores. As each of the
parties would be getting only the amount
claimed by them at the termination of the
arbitration proceedings.

37. This Court is also of the
considered
opinion
that
the
Fourth
Schedule is applicable to even Arbitral
Tribunals appointed under Section 11 (2)
and the ceiling limit of Rs.30 lacs as Model
Fee for all claims above Rs.20 crores
would be applicable in the case of
determination of Fee of Arbitral Tribunal
and the orders impugned have erroneously
ignored the Fourth Schedule saying that it
would only be applicable to cases where
the High Court has framed Rules or
appointed Arbitrators.

38. With regard to the question whether
Fee should be taken as a composite amount
or is to be paid separately and individually to
each Arbitrator, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the arguments raised
by Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel
appeal more to reason, because under Section
2 (d) of the Act the Arbitral Tribunal is
defined either as a sole arbitrator or a Panel of
arbitrators and the language used in Sub
Section
(14)
of
Section
11
is
for
"determination of Fees of the Arbitral
Tribunal". Had the Legislature intended that
the Fee as mentioned in the Fourth Schedule
was to be given to each of the members of the
Arbitral Tribunal individually, in case it was
a multi member body, then it would have
clarified the same by appending another note
to the Fourth Schedule by saying that in the
event the Tribunal is a multi member body
each of its its members would be getting the
Fee as mentioned in the Schedule.

39. For the reasons as mentioned
hereinabove, this Court the orders impugned
deserve to be set aside. The orders
impugned are set aside.

40. The Arbitral Tribunal shall be free
to determine its Fees and administrative
expenses taking into consideration the
observations made in this judgment and pass
a fresh orders.

41. The Writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A394
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47061 of 2019

Fakeera & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
8 All. Fakeera & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
395
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nuruddin Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Quashing
of proceedings-On basis of Compromise-
Non-Compoundable
offences-
Sections
147, 323, 504 IPC- Keeping in view the
nature and gravity and the severity of the
offence which are more particularly in
private dispute and differences it is deem
proper and meet to the ends of justice.
The proceeding of the aforementioned
case be quashed.

It is settled law that where the parties to a
dispute decide to end the criminal proceedings,
which are non-compoundable but not a heinous
offence and are private in nature, then the
inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.Pc can be
exercised to quash the criminal proceedings on
the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.

Criminal application allowed. (E-2)

Judgements/ Case law cited:-

1. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Har. & ors. 2003 (4) ACC
675.

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. 2012 (10) SCC 303

3. Dimpy Gujral & ors. Vs U.T Through Admin.
2013 (11) SCC 697

4. Narendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.
2014 (6) SCC 466

5. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Jhar. 2014
(9) SCC 653

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Nuruddin Khan learned
counsel for the applicants as well as Syed
Shahnawaz Shah learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A.
and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred seeking the quashing the
entire proceedings including summoning
order dated 7.5.2011 of Complaint Case
No.1047 of 2010 ( Imamuddin Vs.
Fakeera) under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC,
Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor
pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/
Judicial Magistrate, Chandrpu District
Bijnor.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
has argued that the compromise between
the parties has already been filed as
Annexure-6 to the present petition and as
the matter has been compromised on
31.8.2019 , therefore, the present case be
finally decided.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that both the parties have come
to terms and have buried their differences
and disputes. Therefore, no useful purpose
would be served to keep the matter alive
and pending. Learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 has filed an affidavit stating
therein in paragraph nos. 7 & 8 that
opposite party no.2 is no more interested to
pursue the case any more against the
applicant. This fact of compromise has
confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the
counsel for the parties and has jointly
submitted that there would be no harm and
error and would be in the interest of justice
that the proceedings may be quashed in the
light of the compromise.

5. It was further submitted by both the
counsel that the parties appeared before the
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court below and Court below verified the
signatures of both the parties and the
Judicial Magistrate Chandpur, Bijnor duly
verified the veracity of the compromise
deed vide order dated 6.02.2020. Copy of
the same is filed as Annexure No.SA1 to
the Supplementary Affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
has drawn the attention of the Court and
placed reliance of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his case.

(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4)
ACC 675.

(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE
OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND
OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY
THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013
(11) SCC 697.

(iv)
NARENDRA
SINGH
AND
OTHERS
VS.
STATE
OF
PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC
466.

(v)
YOGENDRA
YADAV
AND
OTHERS
VS.
STATE
OF
JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.

7. Summarizing the ratio of all the
above
cases
the
latest
judgment
pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of "DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @
PARBATBHAI
BHIMSINHBHAI
KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE
OF
GUJARAT
AND
ANOTHER
reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in
paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has summarized the broad principles with
regard to exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of
compromise/settlement
between
the
parties. Which emerges from precedent of
the subjects as follows:-

i. "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 recognizes and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

ii.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.

iii. 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;

iv. 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;

v. 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;

vi. 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
8 All. Fakeera & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
397
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;

vii. 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;

viii. Criminal cases involving
offences which arises 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;

ix. 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

x. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) 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."

8. With the assistance of the aforesaid
guidelines, keeping in view the nature and
gravity and the severity of the offence which
are more particularly in private dispute and
differences it is deem proper and meet to the
ends of justice. The proceeding of the
aforementioned case be quashed.

9. This order is being passed by this
Court after hearing the contesting parties and
perusing the affidavit filed by learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2. This Court has
not verified their credentials. If at all,
opposite party no.2 feels that he has been
duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may
file recall application explaining the reasons
for filing the said application.

10. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
stands allowed. Keeping in view the
compromise arrived at between the parties,
entire
proceeding
of
Complaint
Case
No.1047 of 2010 (Imamuddin Vs. Fakeera)
under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC, Police
Station Chandpur, District Bijnor pending in
the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial
Magistrate, Chandrpu District Bijnor is
hereby quashed.

11. The parties may file the copy of this
order before the Court below within three
weeks from today.

12. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

13. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)08ILR A398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ B No. 525 of 2021

Ambika Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
A.D.M. Basti & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mazhar Abbas Zaidi, Sri Sunil Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shiv Dayal Tiwari, Sri Sabhapati
Tiwari

A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Sections 12 & 48, Explanation (2) to
Section 48 - Consolidation proceeding -
Belated
appeal
before SOC
-
Delay
Condonation rejected - Revision before
DDC - Scope and maintainability - Though
in operative portion D.D.C. has made an
observation to dismiss the revision on the
ground of maintainability, in the body of
the judgment it has discussed the merits
of the delay condonation in detailed and
affirmed the finding of SOC - Held, S. 48
vested
vast
power
in
DDC
having
supervisory
jurisdiction
over
all
the
subordinate authorities, as such he may
call for and examine the record of any
case decided or proceeding taking by any
subordinate court - Decision on the
condonation of delay cannot be said to be
an interlocutory order as defined in the
Explanation - 2 to Section 48 of the Act.
(Para 11 and 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Parash Nath Vs DDC & ors., 2008 (104) RD
516
2. Smt. Urmila Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal & ors.,
2013 (118) RD 180
3. Jeet Narain & anr. Vs Govind Prasad & ors.,
2010 (3) ADJ 470 (SC)
4. Mukesh & anr. Vs Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue), Mathura & ors., 2015 (8) ADJ 73
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mazhar Abbas Zaidi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
appeared
through
video
conferencing.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Shiv Dayal
Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.4 to 7, at admission stage.

2. Petitioners have filed the present
writ petition challenging the impugned
order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the
Additional
District
Magistrate,
Basti
(respondent no.1) exercising his power
under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,
1953
(in
brevity
"U.P.C.H. Act") in Revision No.459 of
2020
(Computerized
No.D202017140001798) (Suit No.01798 of
2020) (Ambika Prasad and Others vs. Smt.
Savitri Devi and Others) and order dated
09.01.20215 passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Basti (in brevity
"S.O.C.")(respondent
no.3)
in
Appeal
No.120 under Section 11 (1) of the
U.P.C.H. Act.

3. Present writ petition is arising out
of proceeding under section 12 of UPCH
Act. Dispute relates to property belongs to
one Hari Prasad. Plot in question i.e. Khata