Amit Madan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1674 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13072 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Madan And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jai Shanker Malviya,Sitaram Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 11.7.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 250 of 2021, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 9717/9 of 2021 (State Vs. Amit Madan and Others), now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Moradabad.

Present application came up for admission on 30.5.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-

The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the entire impugned proceeding of Criminal Case No. 9717/9 of 2021 (initiated on charge sheet dated 11.07.2021 filed in Case Crime No. 250 of 2021), under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 just to grab the shop of the applicants cooked-up this story, as narrated in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the admitted position in the FIR that the informant is working as an employee of one Ramesh Kathyal and has been assigned with the work of collecting rents from the properties belonging to Ramesh Kathyal. It is further submitted that it is highly unbelievable that an employee, who had collected an amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- as rent had given the same to the applicants without there being any consent of his owner/master (Ramesh Kathyal). It is further submitted that if the money has been given in the year 2015-16 and the same was not returned for two years, then there was no occasion for the opposite party no. 2 to again give money to the applicants, after about two years. It is further submitted that if the story narrated in the statements given have been taken as true, on the face of it, even then, the dispute is of civil in nature, pertaining to transaction of money and the recovery of the same. For recovery of money, if any, due against the applicants, that could be claimed by filing an appropriate suit before the competent court of law, in place of giving it a colour of criminal proceedings. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka [2021 SCC Online SC 976].

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that from the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the offence is made out against the applicants.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha (supra), prima-facie, it appears that there is a dispute relating to financial transaction between the parties. It is settled law that if the dispute involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. It has further been held that criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

As prayed, steps be taken within a week.

List this case in the week commencing 01.08.2022.

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of the above mentioned case shall remain stayed, as far as it is related to the present applicants."

Pursuant to above order dated 30.5.2022, opposite party-2 has put in appearance. Parties have filed joint affidavit of compromise before this Court, wherein it has been stated that parties have compromised their dispute. As such, no cause of action survies with opposite party-2 to pursue aforesaid case

Learned counsel for applicants contends that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. During pendency of above mentioned criminal case before Court below, parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a joint compromise application has been filed before this Court.

On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.

Learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. He contends that dispute between parties is basically a private dispute. Parties have already compromised which has also been acted upon. As such, no ground exists to continue the prosecution of applicants. The chances of conviction are alsoo bleak and remote.

It is also contended by learned A.G.A. that once first informant/opposite party-2 has himself compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court.

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

2. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582

3. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

4. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

5. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

6. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

7. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

8. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

9. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

10. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

11. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721

12. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

13. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

14. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

15. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

16. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

17. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

18. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

19. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

20. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

21. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834

22. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936.

23. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 fo the report, which read as under:

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

16.1. 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 recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. 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.

16.3. 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;

16.4. 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;

16.5. 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;

16.6. 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;

16.7. 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;

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences 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;

16.9. 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

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 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."

Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-

"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties and the material on record, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Moreover, during pendency of present application, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties has been acted upon. As such, on date no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants is remote and bleak. As such the continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Consequently, entire proceedings of Case No. 9717/9 of 2021 (State Vs. Amit Madan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 250 of 2021, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, are hereby, quashed.

Application is, accordingly, allowed.

Cost made easy.

Order Date :- 17.1.2023/Arshad