Mahesh Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 90 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19797 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahesh Aggarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶2The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC beseeching the quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.1302 of 2022 (State vs. Mahesh Aggarwal), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar, under section 406, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of Charge sheet dated

15.03.2022 filed in Case Crime No.0669 of 2021, Police Station Ecotech-III, Greater Noida, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar as well as cognizance and summoning order dated

10.6.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C. Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶3Opposite party No.2 has lodged an F.I.R. levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation against the present applicant. During pendency of the case, both the parties have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably out of the Court. Having considered the amicable settlement, this Court, vide order dated

25.05.2023, has issued a direction for verification of compromise.

¶4For ready reference, order dated 29.08.2023 is quoted herein below:- "Vakalatnama, filed by Sri D. K. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1302 of 2022 (State vs. Mahesh Aggarwal) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), F.T.C., Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of charge-sheet dated 15.3.2022 filed in Case Crime No. 0669 of 2021, P.S. Ecotech-III, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 10.6.2022. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri D.K. Shukla, counsel for opposite party no.2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have entered into compromise. A copy of compromise dated 16.12.2022 is annexed as Annexure -5 to the affidavit. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the Court concerned along with a copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a short date for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of three weeks thereafter. Upon due verification, the Court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court on or before

10.8.2023. Place this case in the additional cause list on 10.8.2023 before appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. When the case is listed next, the name of Sri D.K. Shukla shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2. "

¶5In pursuance of the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by this Court, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) F.T.C. / A.C.J.M. Gautam Buddh Nagra has submitted its compromise verification report dated 10.8.2023 along with copy of the compromise application dated 6.6.2023 and compromise verification order dated 14.6.2023.

¶6Perusal of the compromise verification report dated

10.8.2023 and compromise verification dated 14.6.2023 reveals that both the parties were present personally before the Court below and they have been identified by their respective counsel. The contents of compromise has been spelled out to the parties concerned, who have admitted the factum of the compromise and stated that they voluntarily entered into compromise without any duress.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the eventuality of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the verification of said compromise by the court competent, the instant application may be allowed and entire criminal proceeding may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. It is further submitted that now there is no dispute exists between the parties and they have no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

(i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others;

(2003) 4 SCC 675.

(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation;

(2008) 9 SCC 667.

(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1.

(iv) Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

(v) Narindra Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶8In a recent judgment passed by a Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the Case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843, Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the ratio of all the cases decided earlier with respect to quashing of F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between the parties and expounded the ten categories in which application under Section 482 could be entertained for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet/criminal proceeding on the basis of compromise. Para no. 15 of the said judgement summarizing the proposition in this respect is reproduced below:- "15. (i) Section 482 preserves the inherent power 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;

(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 compliant 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 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 approximately 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 insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) 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;

(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."

¶9Learned AGA has no objection, in case, the instant application is decided by this Court on the basis of compromise took place between the parties, which is duly verified by the court concerned.

¶10Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has nodded the factum of the compromise entered into between the parties and he has no objection, if the instant application is decided finally on the basis of the said compromise. He also submits that compromise was verified in presence of both the parties, who have voluntarily entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not wants to prosecute the present case against the applicants any more as no dispute remains between the parties.

¶11Having considered the compromise verification report, compromise verification order and with the assistance of the aforesaid guidelines, keeping in view the nature of gravity and severity of the offence, which are more particular in private dispute, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice, the present proceeding should be quashed. In result, dispute between the parties will put to an end, peace will be resorted and relationship between them will be smooth. No useful purpose would be served to keep the present matter pending inasmuch as both the parties have buried the hatchet and as the time passes, it will be difficult to prove the guilt of the accused. The continuation of criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.

¶12In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been duly verified by the concerned court below, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The entire criminal proceeding of the aforementioned case is hereby quashed.

¶13Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court for necessary action. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Vandana Y. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad