Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Bhatt And Another ... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 430 of 2022
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Vinay Bhatt and Another ... Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ... Respondents
And
Criminal Misc. Application No. 438 of 2022
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Vinay Bhatt and Another ... Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ... Respondents
Advocate: Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Chetna
Latwal, Advocate, for the applicants
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State
Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate, for the complainants through
video conferencing.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
These two C482 Applications itself are governed
under a peculiar set of circumstances. Both the C482
Applications are listed on the respective Compounding
Applications (IA/1/2022).
1. C482 Application No. 430 of 2022 deals with a
Criminal Case No. 3442 of 2017, State Vs. Vinay Bhatt
and Another, which was arising out of an FIR, being
FIR No. 211 dated 17.04.2017, which was got
registered against the present applicants, for the
commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B, 504 & 506 of IPC, on which, after the
culmination of the investigation, the Chargesheet,
being Chargesheet No. 164 of 2017 dated 06.06.2017
was submitted by the Investigating Officer, on which
the cognizance have been taken by the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, by an order dated
21.07.2017. It is the cognizance order; the
Chargesheet and the entire criminal proceedings which
have been put to challenge by the present applicants.
2. C482 Application No. 438 of 2022 arises out of
a Criminal Case No. 3441 of 2017, State Vs. Vinay
Bhatt and Another, which was arising out of an FIR,
being FIR No. 212 dated 17.04.2017, which was
registered against the present applicants for their
alleged involvement in commission of the offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504 & 506
of IPC. In this case too, the investigation was
culminated and the Chargesheet, being Chargesheet
No. 165 of 2017 dated 06.06.2017 was submitted by
the Investigating Officer, on which the cognizance have
been taken by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun, by an order dated 21.07.2017, whereby the
present applicants have been summoned.
3. These two C482 Applications are listed today on
the respective Compounding Applications (IA/1/2022).
4. When the Compounding Applications were filed,
the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated
18.04.2022, had granted time to learned Government
Advocate, to file objection to the Compounding
Application, but the same has not yet been filed.
5. The matter was argued, and after going through
the FIR (in both the cases), apparently, the offences,
so far it relates to Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC,
which though are not compoundable under Section 320
of CrPC, but apparently it cannot be said to be made
out, because there was no deferment with regards to
the valuable securities, as it finds in the aforesaid
provision. If at all, the offences could be made out,
that could be of Sections 420, 120B, 504 & 506 of IPC,
which are the offences, which are compoundable under
Section 320 of CrPC.
6. The parties have participated in the proceedings of
these two C482 Applications, through video
conferencing. The applicants have been duly identified
by the learned Senior Counsel, Mrs. Pushpa Joshi,
assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocate and the
complainant/respondent No. 2 of C482 Application No.
430 of 2022 and C482 Application No. 438 of 2022 i.e.
Mr. Ashutosh Uniyal and Mr. Bipin Singh Negi
respectively, have also participated the proceedings
through video conferencing, who have been duly
identified by their counsel Mr. Aditya Pandey,
Advocate.
7. This Court has also interacted with the applicants
and particularly Mr. Vinay Bhatt, who claimed to be a
journalist. He admits the fact, that the amount was
received by him to the tune of Rs. 8.50 lakh from each
of the respondents of the respective C482 Applications,
on the pretext of enabling them to provide employment
in the Secretariat, owing to close acquaintances of his
with the higher authorities, working in the Secretariat.
8. But, however, later on, when the appointment was
not provided to the respondent, the FIRs were got
registered and subsequent to it, when the Applications
were preferred, it had been preferred on the ground
whereby the private respondents in the respective
C482 Applications have submitted that the amount,
which was taken by the applicant from them on the
pretext of providing employment to them in the
Secretariat, the same has been received back by them
from the applicants.
9. The factum of having received the aforesaid
amount on the pretext of providing employment has
been admitted by the applicant, and this aspect also
stands fortified by the fact, that the applicant had
returned the amount, which was received by him from
the private respondents, which is said to have been
returned to them by him.
10. While dealing with the arguments, the learned
Government Advocate, pertaining to the non
compoundability of some of the offences, on which the
cognizance have been taken, if the entire narration of
FIRs is taken into consideration, the offences under
Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC cannot be culled out to
have been made out from the set of allegations, which
have been leveled in the FIRs or from the Chargesheet
also, because the ingredients provided therein, they
are not satisfied. But, so far as the rest of the offences
i.e. Sections 420, 120B, 504 & 506 of IPC are
concerned, they are the compoundable offences under
Section 320 of CrPC.
11. Since the parties have settled their disputes and
admittedly, the money has been returned back by the
applicant to the private respondents, the grievance
now stands redressed. As a consequence thereto, the
respective Compounding Applications would stand
allowed. As a result thereto, the proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 3442 of 2017, State Vs. Vinay Bhatt
and Another and Criminal Case No. 3441 of 2017,
State Vs. Vinay Bhatt and Another, pending
consideration before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun, would hereby stand dropped.
12. Subject to the aforesaid, the C482 Applications
are closed and the proceedings of the above cited
criminal cases are dropped.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in the order
sheet of C482 Application No. 438 of 2022.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
09.01.2023
Mahinder/
