HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 34573 of 2019
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Sanjay Kumar Dubey
Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Short counter affidavit filed to by the Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 acknowledging the compromise between the parties, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of the instant application the applicant is pleased to quash the summoning order dated 19.03.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no. 91 of 2019, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sasani, District Hathras.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is business and commercial dispute between the parties, which has been settle once for all.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the parties that on the earlier occasion the matter was referred to medication centre, since the contesting parties have buried their difference and disputes and therefore, there is no useful purpose to be served to keep the matter alive and pending. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the affidavit a compromise/affidavit dated 19.12.2019 arises between the contesting parties by which both the parties has sorted out their differences and dispute out side the court. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:-
(i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675.
(ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303.
(iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697.
(iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466.
(v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653.
Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows: –
i. “Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to 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 recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
ii.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 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.
iii. 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;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report 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;
vi. 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 appropriately be 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;
vii. 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;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arises 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;
ix. 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; and
x. 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 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.”
Taking the help of these guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.
The present 482 application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2020