M/S Tata Capital Financial ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 21940 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7887 of 2022
 
Applicant :- M/S Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Thru. Power Of Attory. Sri Sanjay Chaudhary And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal,Shyam Kumar Ray
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case titled as Smt Varsha Versus Tata Capital and 6 others, registered at Complaint Case No. 1920/2022, Police Station Ashiana, Lucknow, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-V, Court No.29, Lucknow and the impugned summoning order dated 26.05.2022 and also the effect and operation of the order issuing the Bailable Warrants and to stay the aforesaid complaint case during the pendency of the application.

This Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 passed the following order:

"Heard Shri Pranashu Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Diwaker Singh, learned AGA for the State.

In compliance of order dated 7.12.2022 passed by this Court, opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager-Legal and Remedial are present in person before this Court today.

This Court passed the following order on 10.11.2022.

"In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the applicant has brought a demand draft of Rs.5,13,750/-. The O.P. No.2 is present before this Court in person and the bank draft is handed over to her. The O.P. No.2 is identified by the learned AGA Sri Vivek Gupta.

It has been admitted by the O.P. No.2 that she has also received an amount of Rs.27,426/- on 14.6.2021. The total amount of the proceed of sale of Car is Rs.6,20,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.78,824/- is outstanding amount.

It is directed that the said remaining outstanding amount of Rs.78,824/- will also be paid by the applicant to the O.P. No.2 within one week.

The O.P. No.2 has submitted that in case the entire amount is paid to her, she will not press the complaint and is ready to make compromise in the matter within one week.

List this case on 21.11.2022 as fresh.

The compromise deed will be filed by the applicant through his affidavit. The O.P. No.2 will cooperate in the said compromise-deed.

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the case will remain stayed.

On the next date of listing, the O.P. No.2 and Sri Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager Legal and Remadial, the applicant, will again appear before this Court."

Opposite party no. 2 Smt. Varsha disputes the compromise and submits that her husband had purchased a Brezza car for more than Rs.12 lac but the car was sold on 50% amount by M/s Tata Captial Financial Services Ltd. due to default of some instalment. She further submitted that at least Rs.1 (one) lac more be given to her to settle the present case in the interest of justice.

Shri Pranashu Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners after consulting Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager-Legaland Remedial submitted that Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager-Legal and Remedial is ready to pay the said amount to the opposite party no.2 by bank draft within four days from today before this Court and the same will be handed over by him to the opposite party no.2 in Court. The opposite party no.2 on the assurance given by Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary submits that she will settle the entire liability and will not claim any amount further and she also made statement before this Court that she will not pursue the present case and this Court may quash the proceeding of the case pending before the court below.

Put up this case on 20.12.2022 for further arguments. On the said date, opposite party no.2 and Shri Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager-Legal and Remedial will appear in person before this Court.

Interim order granted earlier by this Court is extended till the next date of listing."

In compliance of order dated 13.12.2022 passed by this Court, Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager, Legal and Remidial, M/s Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and Smt. Varsha wife of Late Sri Dharmendra Rai, opposite party No.2 are present in person before this Court.

Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager, Legal and Remedial, M/s Tata Capital Financial Services Limited submits that today he has engaged new Advocates Sri Ritesh Goyal, and Sri Aasif Razzaque Khan, who will assist the Court in the present case.

Sri Ritesh Goyal and Sri Aasif Razzaque Khan, Advocates has filed their Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants today in the Court. The same is taken on record.

Sri Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A-1 and Sri Diwaker Singh, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State-opposite party No.1 are also present.

Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Manager, Legal and Remidial, M/s Tata Capital Financial Services Limited submits that in compliance of order dated 13.12.2022 he has transferred amount of Rs.99,000/-(Rs. Ninety Nine Thousand) through Google Pay and Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) through Paytm, total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 1 Lac) in the Account of Smt. Varsha wife of Late Sri Dharmendra Rai, opposite party No.2, bearing Account No. 31890100005861, Bank of Baroda, Kursi Road Branch, Lucknow, as directed by this Court. He further submits that now no amount is due against the applicant and the entire liability has been cleared.

Smt. Varsha wife of Late Sri Dharmendra Rai, opposite party No.2 submits that she has already received earlier an amount of Rs. 6, 20,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs and Twenty Thousand) and also confirmed about the payment made today amounting to Rs.99,000/-(Rs. Ninety Nine Thousand) through Google Pay and Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) through Paytm, total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 1 Lac) in her account bearing Account No. 31890100005861, Bank of Baroda, Kursi Road Branch, Lucknow and she submits that she has received the entire amount i.e. 7,20,000/- (Rs. Seven Lacs Twenty Thousand) and no amount is due against applicant. She further submits that the proceedings pending before the court be quashed and she has no objection. She also submits that in future she will not initiate any criminal or civil case against the applicant in respect of the present dispute.

Sri Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A-1 and Sri Diwaker Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that since the parties have entered into compromise and the entire liability has already been paid to the opposite party No.2 Smt. Varsha wife of Late Sri Dharmendra Rai, and no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case may go on future, thus in the interest of justice the proceedings of the case pending before the court below be quashed and they have no objection.

Learned counsel for the parties has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Ssingh 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 the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."

The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

With the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly is 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 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and in view of the statement/compromise made by the applicant as well as opposite party no.2 and the observation made above, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1920/2022, Police Station Ashiana, Lucknow, Smt Varsha Versus Tata Capital and 6 others, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-V, Court No.29, Lucknow is hereby quashed.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 20.12.2022

Arvind