Vineet Kumar @ Vinit Tripathi vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8357 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 31
 

 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1080 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Vineet Kumar @ Vinit Tripathi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh K. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Maya Ram Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.4800450 of 2011 (State Vs. Vineet Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2010, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/507 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) lodged by respondent No.2 (Sri Rajpati Yadav) at Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

2. In short, facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:-

(i) A First Information Report was registered against Vineet Tripathi (petitioner/applicant) on the basis of written complaint moved by Sri Rajpati Yadav (respondent No.2) under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/507 of I.P.C. After investigation chargesheet was submitted. The court took cognizance of the matter and issued summon to the applicant/accused. The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 5375 (A-482) of 2011 against the summoning order and chargesheet.

(ii) After hearing the parties the Court was pleased to dispose of the same providing that "if the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, it is expected that the same shall be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day in view of guide lines by Full Bench decision of High Court in case of Amaravati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437."

iii. The petitioner was enlarged on bail. Trial started and charge has been framed. Now on 06.02.2020 the complainant and the applicant have entered into compromise and the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner. The compromise, so entered into was verified by the Court below in compliance of this Court's order dated 20.02.2020. Verification report of the officer-in-charge, Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow is on record alongwith the copy of the compromise so arrived at.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably. A compromise deed was written and verified under the order of this Court by court below, so the entire proceedings of the criminal case referred in the petition may be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303..

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 acceded to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. did not raise any objection against submissions so made.

7. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under (relevant paragraph 61):-

"61. The position that emerges 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 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. 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 pre-dominatingly 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 or personal in nature 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 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."

9. Learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably. Settlement deed has been written and duly verified by the court concerned. The report of the officer-in-charge Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow is on record. Learned counsel for the applicant and for respondent No.2 have also stated that now there remains no dispute left between the applicant and respondent No.2.

10. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, it appears just to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.4800450 of 2011 (State Vs. Vineet Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2010, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/507 of I.P.C., Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

12. The petition is allowed accordingly.

13. The entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2010, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/507 of I.P.C., Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 22.7.2021

A.K. Singh