The Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, has laid down the principles for quashing criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The ruling was made in two cross applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerning incidents that occurred in 2011. Justice Rajeev Misra, presiding over the case, quashed the ongoing trials, emphasizing that the compromise reached between the parties made the continuation of the prosecution unnecessary.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an altercation on December 4, 2011, in Badagaon, Varanasi, leading to two cross FIRs. The first FIR (Case Crime No. 263 of 2011) was filed by Shiv Kumar, accusing Virendra Kumar Singh and others of attempted murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The incident resulted in injuries to two individuals, Ram Kumar and Virendra Kumar Singh.
A cross FIR (Case Crime No. 263A of 2011) was filed by Virendra Kumar Singh against Shiv Kumar and others, alleging offences under Sections 147, 452, 336, 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
Both cases led to the initiation of Sessions Trials—No. 255 of 2012 against Virendra Kumar Singh and No. 510 of 2013 against Shiv Kumar. During the pendency of these trials, both parties reached a compromise on May 18, 2024, prompting the applications under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
The primary legal question was whether the High Court could quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, particularly when serious charges like attempted murder under Section 307 IPC were involved. The court also had to consider whether the nature of the offence allowed for quashing, given that certain serious offences are non-compoundable under Indian law.
Court’s Ruling and Principles Established
In a detailed judgment, Justice Rajeev Misra outlined the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have settled their dispute. The court held that even in non-compoundable cases, the proceedings could be quashed if the offence was primarily of a private nature, and the continuation of the trial would not serve the ends of justice.
The court referred to several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2021), and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003), which dealt with the quashing of criminal proceedings in light of a compromise. It further summarized the following key principles:
1. Nature of the offence: The court must evaluate whether the offence is of a private nature or has a serious impact on society. Heinous crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity, which affect public interest, cannot be quashed even if the victim has settled the matter. In contrast, cases arising from personal disputes, such as those involving financial or civil matters, may be quashed.
2. Effect on Public Interest: The court must consider the societal impact of allowing the compromise. In cases where the offence is not against the state or public interest, and the chances of conviction are remote, quashing the proceedings may be justified.
3. Voluntary Nature of Compromise: The court stressed that any compromise must be voluntary, without any pressure or coercion. The court noted that both parties in this case had willingly settled their differences.
4. Judicial Economy: In cases where the settlement eliminates any realistic possibility of conviction, the continuation of proceedings would merely waste judicial resources. Justice Misra observed that the court should not prolong trials that serve no useful purpose, particularly in a judicial system already burdened by excessive litigation.
5. No Grievous Injuries: In this particular case, the court considered the fact that no grievous or fatal injuries were sustained by the victims, and the dispute was primarily personal in nature. Therefore, the public interest in continuing the prosecution was minimal.
6. Cross FIRs: The existence of cross FIRs was another relevant factor. The court highlighted that since both sides had lodged FIRs against each other for the same incident, and both had agreed to a compromise, the matter could be resolved through quashing the cases.
Important Observations by the Court
Justice Misra made crucial observations regarding the judicial approach to such cases. He stated:
– “The dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute and not against the State.”
– “Continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties and would entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit.”
Counsel and Party Details
The case involved two separate applications:
– In Application U/S 482 No. – 19240 of 2024 (Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.), the counsel for the applicant was Mr. Rishabh Narayan Singh, with Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma representing the opposite parties.
– In Application U/S 482 No. – 18772 of 2024 (Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P.), the same counsel appeared for the respective parties, with both sides supporting the quashing of the proceedings based on the compromise.
