- (1.) The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case no.15524 of 2018, arising out of the FIR No.304 of 2018, under Section 323 , 504 , 506 , 364 , 511 , 120 B IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya. A prayer has also been made for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2018 whereby the bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioners as they did not answer the summons. The ground for quashing of the impugned proceedings is the compromise arrived at between the parties which has been placed on record as Annexure-6. According to the compromise, the complainant and the petitioner no.1 are partners in the business of property dealing. Certain disputes arose as the firm incurred losses. By intervention of well wishers and friends and family, the parties have reconciled their differences. It has been further said that because of some misunderstanding, the FIR was registered and now the parties have reconciled their disputes amicably and complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner any further.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even from the reading of the FIR, only attempt for committing an offence under Section 364 IPC has been alleged. He also submits that though the offence is not compoundable under section 320 CrPC but this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC in appropriate cases can quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of the offences which are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment delineates the scope of Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings on the basis of the settlement by the High Court. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings : 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and withn caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure : (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. while exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3 Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between teh victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes shold be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/ delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by teh victim can generally be the guiding factor. on the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation. it is because ofthe reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/ material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
(3.) Considering the fact that the petitioner no.1 and the complainant were business partners, the allegations in the FIR is to the effect for an attempt to abduct the complainant. Since the parties have settled their disputes amicably they are present in the court in person who have been identified by their respective lawyers and they have unequivocally stated that they do not want to pursue the case any further and, the FIR was result of some misunderstanding and, now with the intervention of family and friends they have settled their disputes, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings inasmuch as no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings before the learned trial court. However, since the parties have wasted the precious time of the court by setting in motion criminal justice delivery system by lodging the FIR, investigation and issuing process etc, it will be appropriate to impose some cost on the petitioner as well as the respondent. In view thereof, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15000/- each in the Army Casualty Welfare Fund within four weeks from today and, produce the slip of deposit before the learned trial court. In the event the amount is not deposited as directed aforesaid, this order of quashing the proceedings will not have any effect and the learned trial court would be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.;