LexANIL MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 385 : 2024 INSC 189 Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1335 of 2024) 01 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the entire proceedings of the case against the accused on the basis of a Settlement Agreement where the complainant in the FIR was not made a party. Headnotes During the pendency of the trial, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and one of the victims i.e. Respondent No.5 – Trial Court on considering the said agreement rejected the same by observing that (i) chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature;(ii) the FIR was lodged by the Appellant yet he was not made a party to the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) the Appellant had filed objections to the Settlement Agreement – Aggrieved, an application was filed by the accused persons before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC – High Court set aside entire proceedings. Held: Appellant herein is (i) an injured victim qua the alleged offence; and (ii) the original complainant in the FIR. Appellant neither entered into any settlement with the accused persons nor was courting any such idea. This Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 laid down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by High Courts vis-à-vis quashing of an FIR, criminal proceedings or complaint. In Gian Singh, this Court inter alia held that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings; or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim 386 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports and the wrongdoer; and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end; and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. In the present case, High Court has certainly erred by quashing the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The High Court failed to notice that the Appellant i.e., an injured victim and original complainant was not a party to the Settlement Agreement and nor was agreeable to such a course of action. Accordingly, the Impugned Order neither secured the ends of justice nor prevented an abuse of process of law, thus the Impugned Order was erroneous and contrary to the principles laid down in Gian Singh. [Paras 11 and 12]. Case Law Cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, [2012] 8 SCR 753 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 - relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Quashing under Section 482 CrPC; Settlement Agreement; Settlement and compromise; Complainant not party to Settlement Agreement; Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC- Principles; Contrary to the interest of justice; Securing the ends of justice; Prevention of abuse of process of law; Non compoundable. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1335 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No.38114 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Konark Tyagi, Adv. for the Appellant. Yasharth Kant, Mrs. Anamika Agarwal, Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Rajesh Kumar, Navank Shekhar Mishra, Ms. Vimal Sinha, Aviral Kashyap, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 387 Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is arising out of order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) bearing number 38114 of 2022, titled ‘Jitendra Mishra @ Sanjay and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.’ (the “Impugned Order”). 3. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein lodged a First Information Report on 07.08.1999 bearing number 966 of 1999 under Section(s) 364, 147, 148, 149 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (the “Accused Persons”) alleging inter alia that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.