Uttarakhand High Court
Jit Endra Kum Ar Alias Dhiraj vs St At E Of Ut T Arakhand on 21 March, 2025
2019:UHC:2030
I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTARAKH AN D
AT N AI N I TAL
TH E H ON 'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ASH I SH N AI TH AN I
2 1 st M a r ch, 2 0 2 5
CRI M I N AL M I SCELLAN EOUS APPLI CATI ON N O. 2 8 0 of 2 0 1 9
Jit endra Kum ar alias Dhiraj ...Applicant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Wit h
CRI M I N AL M I SCELLAN EOUS APPLI CATI ON N O. 5 3 1 of 2 0 1 9
Sat ish Kum ar and Ot hers ...Applicant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for t he Applicant : Mr. Shakt i Singh,
learned counsel.
Counse l for t he St a t e : Mr. Pram od Tiwari, Brief
Holder.
H on'ble Ashish N a it ha ni, J.
There is a delay of 215 days' in filing t he rest orat ion applicat ion, which is not opposed by learned counsel for t he St at e. Delay in filing t he rest orat ion applicat ion is condoned. Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion ( I A No. 243 of 2021) is allowed.
2. I n t he rest orat ion applicat ion, cause shown is sufficient t o allow t he applicat ion. The rest orat ion applicat ion ( I A No. 242 of 2021) is also allowed. Order dat ed 15.03.2019 and 29.09.2020 are recalled and t he crim inal m isc. applicat ion is rest ored t o it s original 1 2019:UHC:2030 num ber.
3. This Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion under Sect ion 482 of t he Cr.P.C. has been filed by t he applicant s, Jit endra Kum ar @ Dhiraj and Sat ish Kum ar @ Abhim anyu Kum ar, seeking quashing of Case Crim e No. 0345 of 2018 and Crim inal Case No. 5849 of 2018, regist ered at Police St at ion Pat el Nagar, Dist rict Dehradun, under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of t he I ndian Penal Code ( I PC) , along wit h all consequent ial proceedings pending before t he Learned First Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun.
4. Heard Mr. Shakt i Singh, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Pram od Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e and perused t he record.
5. The case pert ains t o allegat ions t hat t he applicant s, along wit h co- accused persons, fraudulent ly m isrepresent ed t heir abilit y to secure an MBBS adm ission for t he com plainant 's daught er at Shri Guru Ram Rai Medical College, Dehradun, and in doing so, received ₹16,00,000/- from t he com plainant , Vikash Goyal. However, t he com plainant 's daught er was never adm it t ed t o t he college, leading t o t he regist rat ion of t he FI R and subsequent legal proceedings against t he applicant s and ot hers.
6. During t he pendency of t he t rial, t he applicant s and t he com plainant reached an am icable set t lem ent in January 2019. As part of t he set t lem ent , the applicants returned ₹10,00,000/- to t he com plainant t hrough dem and draft s, whose det ails have been placed on record. The com plainant has filed an affidavit acknowledging receipt of t he am ount and expressing no furt her grievance against t he applicant s.
22019:UHC:2030
7. I n view of t his set t lem ent , an earlier Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion ( C- 482 No. 145 of 2019) was filed, seeking quashing of t he case. The Hon'ble High Court , vide order dat ed 25.01.2019, disposed of t he applicat ion and direct ed t he t rial court t o t ake not e of t he set t lem ent and proceed accordingly. However, despit e t he set t lem ent , t he case cont inued t o rem ain pending, leading t o furt her legal com plicat ions.
8. On 08.10.2024, a recovery warrant was issued against Jit endra Kum ar in com pliance wit h earlier t rial court orders, despit e t he exist ence of t he set t lem ent . This has led t o an urgency in seeking j udicial relief t o prevent unnecessary hardship t o t he applicant s.
9. The court acknowledges t he argum ent s present ed by bot h part ies. Perused t he records.
10. The learned counsel for t he applicant s argued t hat t he ent ire disput e arose out of a financial t ransact ion, which was not a case of crim inal int ent but a m isunderst anding regarding t he adm ission process. I t was furt her subm it t ed t hat t he applicant s didn't gain, as t he full and final set t lem ent am ount was ret urned t o t he com plainant . The applicant s also em phasized t hat no furt her claim s or com plaint s have been m ade by t he com plainant in t he years following t he set t lem ent , reinforcing t hat t he disput e has been effect ively resolved. Reliance has been placed on t he decision of t he Hon'ble Suprem e Court in Gian Singh v. St at e of Punj ab, ( 2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held t hat in disput es prim arily of civil nat ure involving financial t ransact ions, t he Court can exercise it s inherent power under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. t o quash proceedings when 3 2019:UHC:2030 t he part ies have set t led t he m at t er am icably.
11. The learned Addit ional Governm ent Advocat e appearing for t he St at e cont ended t hat t he charges under Sect ions 467, 468, and 471 I PC are serious in nat ure and involve elem ent s of forgery. However, he acknowledged t hat in cases where t he com plainant and t he accused have reached a legit im at e set t lem ent and no public int erest is involved, t he court has discret ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. t o quash proceedings. This posit ion finds support in t he decision in Narinder Singh v. St at e of Punj ab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, where t he Apex Court held t hat if t he offence is not heinous and does not affect public int erest , and t he part ies have genuinely resolved t heir disput e, t he High Court can quash t he crim inal proceedings.
12. The com plainant 's counsel subm it t ed t hat his client has no obj ect ions t o t he quashing of t he case and confirm ed t hat all financial t ransact ions have been set t led am icably. He furt her argued t hat forcing t he accused t o undergo t rial in a m at t er t hat has already been resolved would serve no purpose and would am ount t o an abuse of t he process of law. Reference m ay also be m ade t o B.S. Joshi v. St at e of Haryana, ( 2003) 4 SCC 675, where t he Suprem e Court quashed proceedings in a m at rim onial disput e following a com prom ise t o prevent abuse of process and t o secure t he ends of j ust ice.
13. I t is well- set t led law t hat in cases where t he offense is privat e in nat ure and t he part ies have reached a bona fide set t lem ent , t he court , in t he exercise of it s inherent powers under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., m ay quash crim inal proceedings t o prevent 4 2019:UHC:2030 abuse of t he process of law and t o secure t he ends of j ust ice. The Hon'ble Suprem e Court and various High Court s have consist ent ly ruled t hat in cases of financial disput es, where t he aggrieved part y has been com pensat ed and has no furt her grievance, t he cont inuance of prosecut ion serves no purpose. The decision in St at e of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxm i Narayan, ( 2019) 5 SCC 688 furt her reit erat es t hat in cases not involving heinous crim es or offences against t he societ y at large, t he inherent powers of t he High Court can be right ly invoked for quashing.
14. Considering t he nat ure of t he allegat ions, t he am icable set t lem ent bet ween t he part ies, t he refund of m oney, and t he affidavit of t he com plainant st at ing t hat he does not wish t o pursue t he m at t er furt her, it would be unj ust and unnecessary t o cont inue wit h t he crim inal proceedings. The cont inuat ion of t he t rial would only result in undue hardship t o t he applicant s, wit h no corresponding benefit to t he com plainant .
15. In t he present m at t er, t he court has reviewed all relevant fact s, previous orders, and legal precedent s to det erm ine t he appropriat eness of quashing t he proceedings. The original FI R, charge sheet , set t lem ent agreem ent s, and court orders have been exam ined, and it is clear t hat t he case has been am icably resolved bet ween t he part ies. The t rial court was previously direct ed t o t ake not e of t he set t lem ent , yet proceedings cont inued, leading t o unnecessary delays and hardships for t he applicant s. Furt her, t he com plainant has not pursued any furt her legal claim s, affirm ing t hat t he issue has been set t led in t ot alit y. I n 5 2019:UHC:2030 Yogendra Yadav v. St at e of Jharkhand, ( 2014) 9 SCC 653, t he Apex Court em phasized t hat cont inuance of crim inal proceedings aft er a full and final set t lem ent bet ween part ies would be count erproduct ive t o t he int erest s of j ust ice.
16. The applicant s have dem onst rat ed t hat t he financial disput e was resolved, while t he St at e has recognised t hat no larger public int erest is involved in t he m at t er. Given t hat t he com plainant has no obj ect ion and has filed an affidavit confirm ing set t lem ent , t here exist s no com pelling reason t o allow t he case t o proceed furt her.
17. I n light of t he above findings and set t led legal principles, t his Court is of t he considered view t hat t his is a fit case for quashing of proceedings under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C.
18. The ent ire crim inal proceedings in Case Crim e No. 0345 of 2018 and Crim inal Case No. 5849 of 2018, under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of I PC, pending before t he Learned First Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun, are hereby quashed against Jit endra Kum ar @ Dhiraj and Sat ish Kum ar @ Abhim anyu Kum ar.
19. All pending applicat ions, if any, st and disposed of accordingly.
___________________ ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.
Dt : 21.03.2025 SB Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA SHIKSHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, BINJOLA serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.09 10:13:01 +05'30' 6