Allahabad High Court
Deepinder Goyal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 December, 2020
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16295 of 2020 Petitioner :- Deepinder Goyal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Somya Chaturvedi,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Sharma,Rahul Yadav With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16296 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prerna Parija Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Somya Chaturvedi,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Sharma,Rahul Yadav With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16297 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pratik Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Somya Chaturvedi,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Sharma,Rahul Yadav Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Sharma and Ms. Somya Chaturvedi for the petitioners, Sri Ashutosh Sharma for the informant and the learned AGA.
These writ petitions are preferred for quashing the FIR dated 30.9.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0559/2020, under Sections 406/419/420 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj.
Since common issues are involved in all the three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16295/2020 shall be treated as a leading petition.
The petitioners are CEO, Regional Head and City Head of a venture called ZOMATO Media Private Ltd (ZOMATO), which primarily operates as online restaurant search and discovery platform through its website www.zomato.com and mobile application "Zomato Platform" which allows users to inter-alia place order online with variety of restaurants listed with Zomato. To offer the aforesaid services, Zomato entered into an agreement on 16.01.2019 with the informant, owner of the restaurant named M/s Dewsis at the instance of petitioner Prerna Parija in Crl. M.WP No. 16296 of 2020. The agreement was executed by petitioner- Sri Pratik Singh, City Head in Crl. M.W.P. No.16297/2020, which provided that in the event the restaurant is unable to achieve the targeted business i.e., of 2.5 Cr. within a year (from 20.01.2019 to 20.01.2020), as assured by Zomato, the informant would be entitled to 25% of the deficit amount. The informant could achieve business only to the tune of Rs. 93,16,465/- as against Rs. 2.5 Cr. within the stipulated period. As the amount was not paid the impugned FIR came to be lodged.
Learned counsel for the respective parties jointly state that the dispute has come to be settled with payment of 25% of the shortfall to the tune of Rs. 42,77,523/- by way of banker's cheque Nos. 042105 and 042104, drawn on HDFC Bank on 18.12.2020 which were handed over to learned counsel for the informant in the Court itself. It is thus, jointly submitted that now no lis survives in view of settlement and receipt of payments, offence do not involve any moral turpitude, allegations only amounted to a commercial dispute, FIR be quashed qua all the petitioners, in the light of the Judgments of Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
Learned AGA has no objection.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) 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."
There is no reason why the aforesaid proposition would not hold good in the instant case as the offence neither involved any moral turpitude nor was heinous in nature, rather was commercial in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement and receipts of payment to the tune of Rs.42,77,523/-.
In this view of the matter, to permit the petitioners to face the prosecution in the face of settlement, would be an abuse of the process. Thus the present prosecution is liable to be quashed.
The writ petitions are allowed. The FIR dated 30.9.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0559/2020, under Sections 406/419/420 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj as well as consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner / s alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 18.12.2020 Chandra/Ujjawal