# Patiram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-25
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 1699 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/patiram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47010
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section

482
-
Quashing of criminal proceedings under
Sections 452, 336, 323, 427 of I.P.C on
basis
of
Compromise
-
Non-
Compoundable offence- None of the
offence, in which the present accusedapplicants are arraigned, is falling under
those heinous offence like murder, rape
or
dacoity,
which
falls
under
the
categories, categorized as heinous and
inacceptable
for
mutual
settlement
between the offender and the victim-The
inherent power may be exercised in
different ways to achieve its ultimate
objective. Formation of opinion by the
High Court before it exercises inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
either of the twin objectives (i) to
prevent abuse of the process of any
court or (ii) to secure the ends of
justice, is a sine qua non.

It is settled law that the power u/s 482 Cr.Pc
can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings
even
in
non-compoundable
offences where the offence arises out of a
family dispute, is not heinous and is private
and personal in nature, not effecting public
life, and the parties have amicably arrived at
a compromise rendering the possibility of
conviction remote. (Para 13, 17, 18, 19)

Criminal Application disposed of. (E-2)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amongst the officers, the direction issued
by the High Court time to time, their
decisions alongwith the decision in this
case also.

17.

Accordingly,
the
present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
disposed of.

18. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Court concerned i.e. Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.)/Judicial
Magsitrate-II,
Bahraich
immediately.
----------
(2021)04ILR A292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 1699 of 2021

Patiram & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Nijam Ahamad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
Section

482
-
Quashing of criminal proceedings under
Sections 452, 336, 323, 427 of I.P.C on
basis
of
Compromise
-
Non-
Compoundable offence- None of the
offence, in which the present accusedapplicants are arraigned, is falling under
those heinous offence like murder, rape
or
dacoity,
which
falls
under
the
categories, categorized as heinous and
inacceptable
for
mutual
settlement
between the offender and the victim-The
inherent power may be exercised in
different ways to achieve its ultimate
objective. Formation of opinion by the
High Court before it exercises inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
either of the twin objectives (i) to
prevent abuse of the process of any
court or (ii) to secure the ends of
justice, is a sine qua non.

It is settled law that the power u/s 482 Cr.Pc
can be exercised to quash the criminal
proceedings
even
in
non-compoundable
offences where the offence arises out of a
family dispute, is not heinous and is private
and personal in nature, not effecting public
life, and the parties have amicably arrived at
a compromise rendering the possibility of
conviction remote. (Para 13, 17, 18, 19)

Criminal Application disposed of. (E-2)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Gyan Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by applicants
Patiram, Suresh Chandra @ Suresh, Smt.
Vimla and Sandeep Kumar against private
opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely Avadhesh
Verma, Raj Bahadur Verma and Sunil
Kumar.

4. From the array of parties, it appears
that applicant nos.1 & 2 i.e. Patiram and
Suresh Chandra @ Suresh are real brothers
whereas applicant no.3, Vimla is wife of
Patiram and applicant no.4, Sandeep
Kumar is son of Patiram. The parties to the
4 All. Patiram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
application namely applicant nos.1 to 4 and
private opposite party nos.2 to 4 are
residents of same village i.e. Rustampur
under the Police Station Ibrahimpur,
District Ambedkar Nagar.

5. Earlier to this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants had filed
another application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Misc. Case No.777
(U/s 482) of 2021 with averment as to the
amicable settlement between rival parties to
the Criminal Case No.1817 of 2016, pending
in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship. That was
disposed of with direction vide order dated
18.02.2021 by this Court to the learned trial
court
i.e.
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar that if any compromise, as
informed by parties to that application, has
already been entered into by them, is filed
before it, it shall issue notice to all it's
signatories requiring their personal presence
and, thereafter, to proceed to verify the
compromise in accordance with law within
thirty
days
from
the
submission
of
compromise before it. The Court has further
directed that if compromise is verified, a
report to that effect shall be endorsed by the
trial court on the order sheet of the case
making the compromise part of the record. It
was further directed, the parties to obtain
certified copies thereof. Learned court below
was also directed to consider the compromise
so as to dispose of the case on the terms of
compromise between the parties and if any of
the offence is not compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C., the applicants were
given liberty to approach this Court again
alongwith report of learned court below and
duly verified compromise.

6. Pursuant to the order of this Court
dated 18.02.2021, the compromise entered
into between the rival parties of
aforesaid criminal case was presented
before the trial court where the Criminal
Case No.1817 of 2016 (State Vs. Patiram
and others), arising out of Case Crime
No.106 of 2016, under Sections 452, 336,
323, 427 of I.P.C. relating to Police Station
Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar is
pending.

7. The instant application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is moved by the applicants,
Patiram and others with a prayer that the
Court, in exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. be pleased to quash the entire
proceeding of Criminal Case No.1817 of
2016 (State Vs. Patiram and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.106 of 2016, under
Sections 452, 336, 323, 427 of I.P.C. relating
to
Police
Station
Ibrahimpur,
District
Ambedkar Nagar pending in the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar
Nagar as well as the impugned chargesheet
no.57 of 2016 dated 19.09.2016 submitted
against the applicants by the Investigating
Officer in aforesaid case as the parties to the
aforesaid criminal trial have amicably settled
their dispute and the compromise agreement
between them has been duly verified in
accordance with law. It is alleged that the trial
court has not quashed the proceeding on the
basis of the said compromise by reason of
some
of
the
offences
being
noncompoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

8. The said duly verified compromise
by the trial court and certified copy of the
report by the trial court dated 03.03.2021,
is annexed in the instant application as
annexure nos.6 and 7 respectively.

9. When the instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. presented by the
applicant nos.1 to 4, the private opposite
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party nos.2 to 4 have also put their
appearance instantly through their learned
counsel in whose favour the private
opposite parties (the complainants) have
duly executed vakalatnama. Their presence
through vakalatnama is taken on record.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants
and learned counsel for the private opposite
party nos.2 to 4 made a joint prayer to
quash the criminal proceeding in aforesaid
Criminal Case No.1817 of 2016 (State Vs.
Patiram and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.106 of 2016, under Sections 452,
336, 323, 427 of I.P.C. relating to Police
Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar on the basis of amicable settlement
of dispute between them, as reflects from
the compromise, made annexure no.6.

11. On perusal of the compromise,
annexure no.6, undoubtedly it is a lawful
agreement between the aforesaid applicants
who are made accused in the Criminal Case
No.1817 of 2016 (State Vs. Patiram and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.106
of 2016, under Sections 452, 336, 323, 427
of
I.P.C.
relating
to
Police
Station
Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, on
lodging of first information report by the
private opposite party nos.2 to 4, namely
Avadhesh Verma, Raj Bahadur Verma and
Sunil Kumar. The same is duly verified
also by the Trial Court in presence and
attendance of signatories' thereof, in
accordance with law.

12. From the bare perusal of the first
information report, certified copy whereof
is made annexure no.2 to this application, it
appears that on the date of incident viz.
27.06.2016 at about 02:00 P.M., the present
accused-applicants nos.1 to 4 are alleged to
demolish the wall, already built on the
Ancestral Abadi Land of the private
opposite party nos.2 to 4 and, when the
complainant, private opposite party no.3
resisted the present accused-applicants
from such mischief being done, a fracas
occurred, even they chased the private
opposite parties, the complainants inside
their house and beaten them.

13. From perusal of the F.I.R. version,
it appears that the dispute turned violent, as
arisen between the parties with regard to a
property dispute, none of the offence, in
which the present accused-applicants are
arraigned, is falling under those heinous
offence like murder, rape or dacoity, which
falls under the categories, categorized as
heinous and inacceptable for mutual
settlement between the offender and the
victim, in the judgment of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303.

14. Reverting to the annexure no.6,
the compromise entered between the
aforesaid
parties,
obviously
the
complainants of the Case Crime No.106 of
2016, under Sections 452, 336, 323, 427 of
I.P.C. relating to Police Station Ibrahimpur,
District Ambedkar Nagar (the private
opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the instant
application) and the accused-applicants in
the instant application and both have made
their personal appearance before the trial
court
and
the
trial
court
on
due
identification from their learned counsels,
has duly verified the compromise in terms
of lawful agreement between the parties.
The terms of the agreement make it further
clear that, parties to the aforesaid criminal
case are permanent resident of the same
village and as neighbours, are well
conversant with each other since a long,
they have cordial relations but by reason of
the
incident
reported
in
F.I.R
on
27.06.2016, the relations became tense,
4 All. Patiram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
however, now on mediation of reputed
people of the village, friends and relatives,
the parties have resiled their inimical
relations and do not want to litigate any
more, they amicably have settled their
dispute without any coercion, with their
free will.

15. The offences which were found
made out from the evidences collected during
investigation, on the basis whereof, the
charge sheet dated 19.09.2016 is submitted
before
the
trial
court,
appears
some
compoundable
and
non-compoundable
offence both. Since, Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C. provides competence of the trial court
in compounding offences categorized therein
only, therefore, the trial court did not drop the
proceedings in terms of compromise, as the
case is running before it for trial, involves
some non-compoundable offence also. For
the reason, the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is submitted before this
Court again with the aforesaid prayer of the
dropping of the proceeding before the trial
court in terms of the compromise.

16. Offence under Section 452 I.P.C. is
made punishable for doing House-trespass
after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful
restrain, is punishable with imprisonment
upto seven years and fine, is noncompoundable. Other offences under Section
323, 427 I.P.C. are compoundable. As such,
learned trial court in view of the order dated
18.02.2021 could not drop the proceeding
being non-compoundable offence included in
the charges with which accused-applicants
are arraigned in the trial. The compromise
entered into by rival parties with intention to
amicably settle their dispute seems to be a
lawful agreement. Even before this Court, the
parties have representation through their
counsels who asserted that the parties to the
litigation before the trial court have
willingly entered into the compromise with
their free will without any undue pressure or
coercion and their intention is clear to restore
their cordial relations which was existing
between them before the incident in question,
for the reason of which, the F.I.R. was lodged
and they are not willing to make further
prosecution through the trial.

17. The trial, irrespective of their
compromise, if continued, the entire exercise
by the Court will ultimately be futile,
therefore, in view of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court's judgment in para 43 of the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
(Supra). Para 42 is being quoted hereunder:-

"In a very recent judgment decided
by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in
Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of
Gujarat and another[36], this Court was
again concerned with the question of
quashment of an FIR alleging offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420
and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to
quash the criminal case under Section 482 of
the Code. The question for consideration was
that inasmuch as all those offences, except
Section 420 IPC, were non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code,
whether it would be possible to quash the FIR
by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code or by this Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India. The Bench
elaborately considered the decision of this
Court in Shiji alias Pappu33 and by invoking
Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the
criminal proceedings. It was held as under:-

"10. In the light of the principles
mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent
No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an
affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appellant (Accused No. 3) during the
pendency of the appeal before this Court
and the terms of settlement as stated in the
said affidavit, by applying the same
analogy and in order to do complete justice
under Article 142 of the Constitution, we
accept the terms of settlement insofar as the
Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is
concerned.

11. In view of the same, we quash
and set aside the impugned FIR No.
45/2011 registered with Sanand Police
Station,
Ahmedabad
for
offences
punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471,
420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the
Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.
The appeal is allowed to the extent
mentioned above".

18. Ultimately the question is whether
the offences referred in the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in
the trial, whether all the parties have
amicably settled their dispute by way of
compromise, made annexure no.7, are not
willing to litigate any more, be permitted to
do so and if it is, then what would be the
fate of proceeding in the trial in question.
Para 57 of the judgment delivered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
(Supra) answers and explains all the
situations under such circumstances. Para
57 is quoted hereunder:-

57. 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 quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and 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 serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise
between
the
victim
and
offender in relation to the offences under
special
statutes
like
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
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, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
4 All. Smt. Madhu Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
297
continuation of criminal case would put
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
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding.

19. In view of the above discussions,
in exercise of the discretion vested in the
Court which is extra ordinary power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., (i) to stop the
abuse of process of the Court and (ii) to
ensure the ends of justice in terms of the
compromise showing parties willingness to
settle their dispute, the charge sheet dated
19.09.2016 in Criminal Case No.1817 of
2016 (State Vs. Patiram and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.106 of 2016, under
Sections 452, 336, 323, 427 of I.P.C.
relating to Police Station Ibrahimpur,
District Ambedkar Nagar is quashed
consequent thereupon, the learned trial
court is directed to drop the proceeding of
Criminal Case No.1817 of 2016 (State Vs.
Patiram and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.106 of 2016, under Sections 452,
336, 323, 427 of I.P.C. relating to Police
Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar
Nagar.

20. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) to
communicate this order of Court to learned
trial Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ambedkar Nagar immediately.

21.

Accordingly,
the
present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
disposed of.
----------
(2021)04ILR A297
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4795 of 2012

Smt. Madhu Goswami & Anr.
 ...Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Piyush Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 299- Section- 302- Section 304-
Murder
or
Culpable
homicide
not
amounting
to
murder-
The
medical
evidence, the complaint and the evidence
of witnesses corroborates the injuries
caused to the deceased and the other
facts of the said incident is proved by the
evidence led namely occular as well as
documents produced- Section 299 or
Section 304 I.P.C.- clear from the F.I.R.
that there was a heated discussion and
during the quarrel, both the accused had
used what can be said to be Sabbal with
which about six injuries were caused and