Vikrant Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3580 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vikrant Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant,Karunanidhi Yadav,Shilpi Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aniket Srivastav,Devendra Pratap Verma,Satish Chandra Kashish Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the report of mediation and conciliation centre wherein the parties have settled their dispute.

¶3The settlement agreement enclosed to the mediation center report says that the first party i.e. Vikrant Singh and Arjun Pratap Singh, the petitioners have agreed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- to private respondent-Smt. Naziya Ansari, the second party for full and final settlement of all the claims with regard to the dispute between the parties. An amount of Rs.1,30,000/- has been paid in cash and the second party acknowledges the receipt. The petitioners have also transmitted an amount of Rs.45,000/- from the Savings Bank Account to that of Smt. Naziya Ansari, the second party who acknowledges the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- before the mediation and conciliation centre. She has also agreed that she will have no objection if the Criminal Misc Writ Petition No.3580 of 2023 is decided accordingly.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶5Since both the parties to the dispute have arrived at a compromise, in such a situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice.

¶6In the case of Najmul Hasan and others vs. State of U.P. and others; this Court has observed in paras 15 & 16 that:- "15) Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on

07.05.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No.3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No.3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise. 16) We, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the proceedings of the First Information Report dated 14.09.2017, vide Case Crime No.0404 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow, lodged by Smt.Anjum Rizvi-the opposite party No.3."

¶7The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 has held in para-61 that; "the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

¶8In the case of Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat and another [2012 CJ (SC) 896] in which the Apex Court has held in para 9 that if the cases are non compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then the such a criminal matter can be quashed on the basis of mutual compromise where the chance of conviction is bleak. The relevant para 9 of the case is reproduced as under: "9. On going through the factual details, earlier decision, various offences Under Section 320 of the Code and invocation of Section 482 of the Code, we fully concur with the said conclusion. In the case on hand, irrespective of the earlier dispute between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the Appellant being Accused No. 3 as well as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and after getting all the materials,relevant details etc., the present Appellant (Accused No. 3) sworn an affidavit with bona fide intention securing the right, title and interest in favour of Respondent No. 2herein-the Complainant. In such bona fide circumstances, the power Under Section482 may be exercised. Further, in view of the settlement arrived at between Respondent No. 2-the complainant and the Appellant (Accused No. 3), there is no chance of recording a conviction insofar as the present Appellant is concerned and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. Inasmuch as the matter has not reached the stage of trial, we are of the view that the High Court, by exercising the inherent power Under Section 482 of the Code even in offences which are not compoundable Under Section 320, may quash the prosecution. However, as observed in Shiji (supra), the power Under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In other words, the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law."

¶9The Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and another [2011 CJ (SC) 239] has scrutinized the legal position in case of compromise in criminal cases in which the dispute was private in nature. In the matter of compromise continuation of proceeding will be sheer abuse of process of law and in this context the technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceeding. Although the power should be used by the court sparingly.

¶10Since, parties of the dispute have amicably settled their dispute which is commercial in nature, in such a situation, it will be futile to engage them in further litigation. After getting relief from legal proceedings the parties may live their life peacefully. In present scenario, the chance of ultimate conviction is also bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceeding against the petitioner. It may be sheer wastage of valuable time to Court also.

¶11Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No.0434 of 2022, Under Sections 408, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station - Aliganj, Lucknow North, District Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed.

¶12The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which was deposited by the petitioners in the mediation and conciliation centre of this Court shall be released to them if an appropriate application is made out by counsel for the petitioners for such release. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Saurabh Yadav/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench