Stenography: Exercise-12

 Legal Dictation

The decision as to whether a complaint or FIR should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot 3 of 4 appropriately be (100) quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

Criminal cases involving offences (200) which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond (300) the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

Parties have settled the issue; they are residing in same locality and have decided to live peacefully rather than indulging in litigation. To meet the ends of justice and considering that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the trial, the above mentioned FIR (400) with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

A report dated 19.05.2021 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Kaithal, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. (510)

Stenography: Exercise-11

 Legal Dictation

It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever- lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way 2 of 4 of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract (100) the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery."

The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 4843 has expounded principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

"The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to (200) prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the (300) provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. (400)

Stenography : Exercise-10

LEGAL DICTATION 

 Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The document annexed with the application is taken on record. CRM-28291 of 2021 This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main petition which is fixed for 9.12.2021.

Notice in the application to the non-applicant. Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana appearing on advance notice accepts the same and has no objection to the acceptance of the prayer of the applicant.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The date of hearing in (100) the main petition is preponed from 9.12.2021 to today.

With the consent of both the parties, the main petition is taken on Board today itself.

Main petition on the basis of compromise quashing of FIR No. 166 dated 17.3.2021, under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 506 IPC, registered at Police 1 of 4 Station Shahabad and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is sought in the present petition.

The FIR was registered at the instance of Gian Chand. As per the allegations, the dispute is with regard to removing of combine from the fields of the complainant, temper flared up (200) and injuries were inflicted.

On 8.4.2021, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for getting their statements recorded.

A report dated 6.5.2021 is received from the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shahabad stating that compromise is genuine, without any pressure or coercion. It is further stated that the petitioner, as on date, is not declared as Proclaimed Offender.

Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has held:-

"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which (300) can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. (405)

Stenography : Exercise No.9

 LEGAL DICTATION

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 (100) or personal in nature 3 of 4 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 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 (200) 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."

Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing (300) the criminal proceedings to continue.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.0298 dated 12.10.2020 for offence punishable under Sections 148, 149,  IPC, at Police Station Sahlawas, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jhajjar.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today and has not disputed the factual position. It is also not disputed that after arrest of the petitioner, no narcotic substance was recovered from him. (402)

Stenography : Exercise No.8

Legal Dictation

A report dated 12.05.2021 has been submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, wherein it has been reported that statements of the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 have been recorded and statements made by the parties in the Court reveal that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared (100) as proclaimed offender.

Counsel for the State assisted with counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with an intent to give burial to their differences.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent/victims, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh (200) and others vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR, it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution where the High Court feel that the same was 2 of 4 required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR, has held as under:-

"The position that emerges (300) 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 (400) 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. (500) 

Stenography: Exercise No.7

Legal Dictation 

In reply to arguments, raised on behalf of petitioner Dashrath Singh, learned State counsel submits that though he has been declared a juvenile in conflict with law, however, releasing him may expose him again to activities of involvement in drug business.

Order After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, it is apparent that all the accused, including two juveniles, are in judicial custody for the last more than one year; they are not facing any other trial under the NDPS Act; there are 48 prosecution witnesses, however, till date, only the charges have (100) been framed; all the accused have been nominated on the disclosure of two main accused and one of the accused, namely Rahul @ Gurlal Singh, has already been granted concession of regular bail, vide order dated 18.02.2021, therefore, considering the submissions made by all the learned counsel for the petitioners and also in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 7 of 9 In virtual Court 2013 (9) SCR 962, it is yet to be established that if the disclosure of a co-accused is admissible against another accused or not, (200) I find that the petitioners, including both the juveniles, are entitled to get the concession of regular bail as it would not be in the interest of justice to keep them behind bars as they have undergone considerable custody, the petitions, bearing CRM-M Nos. 41104 of 2020, are allowed and petitioners Satish Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky and Resham Singh are granted concession of regular bail, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned." For the sake of brevity, facts are not reproduced again.

Learned counsel (300) for the petitioner submits that on receiving the secret information, two persons namely Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli and Vipin were arrested at the spot, on whose disclosure statement, name of the petitioner surfaced in the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 03 months and 22 days and is not involved in any other case and till date, no prosecution witness has been examined.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 05.09.2021 in the Court today and has not disputed the factual position. It is also not disputed that (400) after arrest of the petitioner, no narcotic substance was recovered from him.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of 8 of 9 In virtual Court the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no other criminal case is pending between the parties and none of the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. (500)

Stenography Exercise No.1 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.2 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.3 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.4 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.5 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.6 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.7 CLICK HERE.

Stenography: Exercise No.6

 Legal Dictation

Learned counsel further submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that main accused used to call him on his mobile phone.

Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Dashrath Singh, submits that petitioner has been declared a juvenile in conflict with law by the Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 01.10.2020 as he was less than 18 years of age.

It is further argued that even from this petitioner, no contraband was recovered and the allegations are that petitioner has given a SIM to one Kuldeep.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of all the accused/petitioners giving details (100) of judicial custody 5 of 9 in virtual Court undergone by them. It is not disputed that co-accused Rahul @ Gurlal Singh has already been granted concession of regular bail as noticed above.

In reply to arguments, raised on behalf of petitioner Satish Kumar, learned State counsel submits that recovery from the main accused was of commercial quantity and as per disclosure of co-accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli, the petitioner has given Rs. 2 Lakh for supply of poppy husk and he was involved in one more case, however, he stands acquitted in that case and now no case (200) is pending against him except the present FIR.

Learned State counsel, in reply to arguments raised on behalf of petitioner Vinod Kumar, submits that the petitioner has given Rs. 54,000/- in favour of co-accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli to bring poppy husk from another accused Dashrath Singh (a juvenile from Madhya Pradesh).

In reply to argument, raised on behalf of petitioners Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky and Resham Singh, learned State counsel submits that they are the brothers of co-accused Rahul @ Gurlal Singh and Resham Singh has transferred Rs. 20,000/- in the bank account of co-accused Rakesh and both the (300) petitioners have paid cash amount to main accused.

Learned State counsel, in reply to arguments raised on behalf of Nazeem Khan, could not dispute that he is a juvenile in conflict with law, however, submits the Board has 6 of 9 In virtual Court rightly formed an opinion that if he is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger as it has come in the report of special investigation that he was influenced by his friends to indulge in this business and being a resident of Madhya Pradesh, he may flee away from the justice. (408)

Stenography Exercise No.1 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.2 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.3 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.4 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.5 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.6 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.7 CLICK HERE.

Stenography: Most important Legal Phrases

 

LEGAL PHRASES

1.      According to the                 ____________	2.      According to the evidence _______
3.       According to the evidence adduced                                 ____________	4.      According to the evidence adduced in the case            _______
5.      According to the evidence discussed                               ____________	6.      According the evidence discussed above                   ______
7.      According to the information supplied                                 _____________	8.      Accused was charged with having                                    _____
9.       Accused was charged with having committed an offence          _____________	10.  Accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under section    _____
11.   Accused was charged with having committed an offence under section                        _____________	12.   Accused was found         ______
13.  Accused was found guilty     _____________	14.  Accused was not found guilty    ____
15.  Ad interim information     _____________	16.  Add these to the list                  ____
17.  Additional First Class Magistrate                        _____________	18.  Additional Magistrate               ___
19.  Additional Second Class Magistrate                        _____________	20.  Adjudged an insolvent              ___
21.  After hearing both sides   _____________	22.  After hearing the arguments _____
23.  After hearing the arguments of the defence counsel _______________	24.  After hearing the arguments of the prosecution counsel    _____
25.  Alleged by the defendant _____________	26.  Alleged by the petitioner          ____
27.  Alleged by the plaintiff    ______________	28.  Alleged by the prosecution      ____
29.  Alleged by the respondent   ____________	30.  Alleged to have been              _____
31.  Alleged to have committed   ____________	32.  Alleged to have committed an offence                               ______
33.  Alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section _________	34.  Alleged to have committed an offence under section           _______
35.  Alleged to have been entered into   ________	36.  Alleged to have been found   _____
37.  Alleged to have found        _______________	38.  Allowed the application   ________

Stenography Exercise No.5

 Legal Dictation 450 words.

Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely Rahul @ Gurlal Singh, who was also nominated on the disclosure statement of accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli and Vipin, has already been granted concession of regular bail, vide order dated 18.02.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CRM- M-34192-2020 noticing the fact that the challan has been presented and no narcotic substance was recovered from him and the only evidence against him is the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Vinod Kumar, 3 of 9 In virtual Court submits that after his name surfaced (100)  in the disclosure statement of aforesaid two co-accused, the petitioner was arrested, however, nothing was recovered from him. Learned counsel further submits that even during investigation, the police has taken the details of the bank account and nothing was found showing that any transaction has taken place from the bank account of the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a chronic eye patient and is taking treatment of his right eye, for which, he has already been operated due to loss of eye sight.

Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is in judicial custody for the last (200) about 11 months and though he was previously convicted for possessing small quantity of contraband in the year 2010, however, except that he is not involved in any other case.

Learned counsel, appearing for petitioners Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky and Resham Singh, submits that petitioners are the brothers of co-accused Rahul @ Gurlal Singh, who has already been granted concession of regular as noticed above. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioners are on the similar footing to that of co-accused Rahul @ Gurlal Singh as he was also nominated on the disclosure of co-accused.

Learned counsel (300) further submits that the petitioners are carrying on their separate business in Gujarat and have no antecedents of involvement in any other case.

4 of 9 In virtual Court Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Nazeem Khan, argues that the petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law, aged about 15 years, and was a student of 7th Standard at the time when he was arrested.

Learned counsel further submits that except the disclosure of co-accused, there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner played any active role. It is further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as Additional (400) Sessions Judge have wrongly declined the concession of regular bail to the petitioner as the maximum punishment under the Act is three years and the petitioner has already undergone custody of about 01 year and 01 month and he is not involved in any other case. (450)

Stenography Exercise No.1 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.2 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.3 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.4 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.5 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.6 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.7 CLICK HERE.

Stenography Exercise No.4

 Legal Dictation

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, relies upon the order dated 06.07.2021 passed in CRM-M-41104-2020, vide which four co-accused of the petitioner namely Satish Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Lakhwinder Singh and Dashrath Singh have been granted the concession of regular bail.

Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered at the instance of Ram Kumar, ASI STF Unit, Ambala while sending information under Section 41 of the NDPS Act that the police party, headed by him, has received a secret information that co-accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli and Vipin are indulged in the business (100) of narcotics and they are coming in a truck bearing registration number HR-64-5638 and they can be apprehended by putting a barrier on the bridge. After sending the information, the police registered the FIR and apprehended both the accused. On search of the vehicle, 876 Kgs. of poppy straw/husk was recovered and both of them were arrested. During investigation, these accused suffered disclosure statements naming as many as 09 more persons as accused.

Arguments Learned counsel, appearing for petitioner Satish Kumar, submits that when co-accused were arrested on 26.05.2020 and on the next date, they recorded their disclosure statement that (200) they had brought poppy husk from Madhya Pradesh and had to supply the same to one Jain r/o Nirwana, Vinod r/o Cheeka, Suresh and his brother r/o village Karodan.

Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the police recorded the second disclosure of accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli, in which the name of the petitioner figured as a person, who was 2 of 9 In virtual Court to receive some amount of the poppy husk and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2020, however, no narcotic was recovered from him. It is further submitted that in pursuance to second disclosure, suffered (300) by accused Sarvjit Singh @ Sabli, no evidence has come forward to corroborated the same.

Learned counsel further submits that as per this disclosure, one Yusuf Khan and Arif @ Pappu were said to be the supplier of the poppy husk and later on, they were also nominated and arrested.

It is further submitted that till date, charges have not been framed and total 49 prosecution witnesses are cited and the petitioner was granted interim bail for three days for attending the marriage of his sister and after availing the same, he has surrendered back and has not misused the same. (400)

Stenography Exercise No.1 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.2 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.3 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.4 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.5 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.6 CLICK HERE.
Stenography Exercise No.7 CLICK HERE.