Allahabad High Court
Anurag Garg vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18544 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anurag Garg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by Shri Prashant Khare, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.3 today is taken on record.
Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sri Narain Mishra, learned A.G.A for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Prashant Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 (informant).
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.03.2017 registered as Case Crime No.168 of 2017 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned first information report was lodged by the respondent no.3 on 18.3.2017, alleging that on 23.12.2016 she invested Rs.1,15,000/- in 'Web Work Trade Links Private Limited' under one plan named as "Plan W 1000" and got a registered account I.D. No.712013015. She was further assured by the accused persons that they will provide her facebook/youtube link and she will get six rupees per click on the said link but later on, she found that the said company is fake company and it has committed a scam of Rs.242 crores. It is stated that in the aforesaid criminal case the investigation is going on and till date, no charge sheet has been filed by the investigating officer. Finally, the matter has already been resolved between the parties outside the Court by an amicable settlement/compromise on 13.9.2022 and the entire amount of Rs.1,15,000/- has been paid to the respondent no.3 vide demand draft No.503625 dated 31.1.2022 drawn at ICICI Bank, Branch Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad. A copy of the demand draft dated 13.9.2022 has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition (at page 86). As such, the FIR is liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
So far as factual aspect of the matter is concerned, the same is reiterated in paragraph-4 of the short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant, wherein it has been stated that the compromise has been taken place between the petitioner and the respondent no.3 on 13.9.2022 and the petitioner has already paid the money invested by the respondent no.3. She has no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed by this Court in terms of the compromise/agreement dated 13.9.2022.
It is jointly submitted that the dispute has already been settled under the settlement agreement dated 13.9.2022, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303.
The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc. under its powers in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. 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."
(emphasis supplied) The present dispute relates to financial transaction. Neither it is involving any moral turpitude nor is heinous in nature, which has come to an end under an amicable settlement/agreement dated 13.09.2022.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of the F.I.R. dated 18.03.2017 registered as Case Crime No.168 of 2017 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut are quashed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022 RKP