Allahabad High Court
Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36640
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12489 of 2023
Applicant :- Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Aditya Vikram Singh,Gaurav Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama alongwith short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court by Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned Counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.
3. Heard Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for applicant, Shri Anuuj Tondon, Advocate holding brief of Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
4. The applicant, namely-Nirogi Venkata Sesha Pavan Kumar, son of Shri Nirogi Venkata Rama Krishna Rao and the opposite party No.2, namely-Hardik Kotak, son of Shri Indubhai Kantilal Kotak are present before this Court, who have been identified by their respective counsel.
5. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Case No.122651/2022; State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors, arising out of Case Crime No.492/2020, pending before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. with a further prayer has been made to quash the impugned summoning order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow whereby the applicant has been summoned under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. alongwith the impugned charge sheet bearing No.2 dated 31.03.2023 filed under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. in relation to Case Crime No.492/2020, Police Station-Banthara, District-Lucknow.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the police after conducting the investigation prepared and submitted a charge sheet dated 10.12.2022 in the instant case and the other co-accused persons under Section 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. and subsequently the cognizance of the matter was taken by learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State v. Petr Novotny and Ors.), whereas, the investigation was kept pending in respect of the present applicant. He further submits that susbequently the police on the basis of same material as was collected during the time of submission of charge sheet No.1 dated 10.12.2022, proceeded to file the impugned charge sheet bearing No.02 dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. against the present applicant at a much belated stage.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused persons being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 17.12.2022 passed by learned Magistrate preferred an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 wherein, this Court vide order dated 28.01.2023 stayed the further proceedings of learned trial court. He further submits that subsequently, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors.) vide order dated 06.12.2023. Copy of the interim order dated 28.01.2023 and final order dated 06.12.2023 passed by this Court are annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the instant dispute essentially exists between Scania India the ex-employer of the present applicant and the opposite party No.2 and the instant case at best involves a civil liability. He further submits that the opposite party No.2 in the present case runs a travel agency in the name of M/s Eagle Travels & M/s Falcon Bus Lines Private Limited.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that during the pendency of this application an agreement dated 09.02.2024 has been entered into between the parties i.e. Scania Commercial Vehicles India Private Limited (First Party) and Falcon Bus Lines Private Limited (Second Party) whereby both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement to extend their cooperation and end all the dispute existing between them. He further submits that in the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 one of the terms and condition of the agreement provides that the opposite party No.2 shall facilitate and cooperate in quashing of the impugned proceedings of Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors.) assailed by means of this application. The settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 is annexed as Annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
10. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that in the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024, it has been amicably agreed between the parties that the parties shall facilitate the quashing of the impugned proceedings. It has been further agreed that a Demand Draft of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency will be handed over to the opposite party No.2 upon the final order being passed by this Court for quashing of the impugned proceedings herein.
11. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024, the applicant has brought a Demand Draft of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore, Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore bearing No.783229 dated 08.05.2024 before this Court in original to be handed over to the opposite party No.2, thus, he submits that the proceedings of the present case may be quashed on the basis of settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 as both the parties are ready to settle their dispute.
12. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 himself submit that they have no objection if the proceedings of the present case are quashed after a Demand Draft of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore, Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore bearing No.783229 dated 08.05.2024 is handed over to the opposite party No.2 before this Court in original. They further submit that they are ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 entered into between the parties amicably.
13. Learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 also made an agreement with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the parties, who are present before this Court in person and submits that he has no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed as the parties have amicably settled their dispute by means of settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024.
14. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the parties, who are present before this Court in person and after going through the record, this Court is also satisfied with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The Demand Draft of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only) drawn in favour of M/s Eagle Travel Agency from Deutsche Bank, Bangalore, Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore bearing No.783229 dated 08.05.2024 is handed over to the opposite party No.2 in original by the applicant. The opposite party No.2 has received the same before this Court and signed the photostat copy of the same, which is taken on record.
15. Further, the amount of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Only) has been paid to the opposite party No.2 as per the settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024 now no dispute remains to be adjudicated between the parties. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 already quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors) in respect of the other co-accused persons.
16. Thus, after considering the same, this Court also finds that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending between the parties as the parties have amicably settled their dispute by means of settlement agreement dated 09.02.2024, which is on record.
17. Learned counsel for the parties have 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.
18. 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."
19. 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.
20. 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 continued. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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 and also taking note of the fact that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.782 of 2023 already quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No.122651 of 2022 (State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors) in respect of the other co-accused persons, the entire proceedings of the Case No.122651/2022; State vs. Petr Novotny and Ors, arising out of Case Crime No.492/2020, pending before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant applicant.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Piyush/-
