Anil Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Background and Facts
The case of Anil Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1335 of 2024) arose from an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement. The original FIR, lodged by Anil Mishra in 1999, alleged offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, and 364 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against several accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, a settlement agreement was reached between the accused and one of the victims (Respondent No. 5), but notably, the original complainant (Anil Mishra), who was also an injured victim, was not a party to this settlement and had objected to it.
Legal Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the accused based on a settlement agreement that excluded the original complainant, especially when some of the alleged offenses were non-compoundable under law.
Arguments and Reasoning
The trial court had already rejected the settlement agreement, noting that the offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 364 IPC are non-compoundable, and that the complainant was not a party to the agreement.
The accused then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which allowed their application and quashed the proceedings.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, which lays down that the High Court should exercise its power to quash proceedings with caution, especially in cases involving non-compoundable offenses and where the complainant’s interests are directly affected.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
The High Court erred in quashing the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings solely on the basis of a settlement agreement to which the original complainant (Anil Mishra) was not a party and to which he had objected.
The fact that certain offenses were non-compoundable further strengthened the impropriety of the High Court’s order.
The High Court’s decision did not secure the ends of justice nor prevent abuse of the process of law.
The rights and interests of the original complainant, especially as an injured victim, must be respected and cannot be overridden by a settlement to which he did not consent.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and reinstated the trial proceedings against the accused. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC cannot be done in disregard of the complainant’s rights, particularly in cases involving non-compoundable offenses and where the complainant is an injured party.
Key Points:
Quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement requires the participation and consent of the original complainant, especially if they are an injured victim.
Non-compoundable offenses cannot be settled privately to the exclusion of due process and the complainant’s rights.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance the ends of justice and prevent abuse of legal process in such matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments