Allahabad High Court
Payal Agarwal And Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy Home ... on 9 November, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(LUCKNOW)
Court No. - 9 AFR
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 21326 of 2020
Petitioners :-
1. Payal Agarwal
2. Shri Alok Agarwal. .
Respondents :-
1. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Additional Chief Secretary (Home)/Principal Secretary (Home) U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow.
2. Commissioner of Police, Lucknow Police Commissionerate, District Lucknow.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow.
4. Ashie Sudhansh Agarwal son of late Naresh Agarwal, Resident of 25, Kasturba Marg, Police Station Cantt. District Lucknow.
Counsel for Petitioners :-
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Mr. Anuj Dayal, Mr. Paavan Awasthi, Mr. Prashant Singh Atal and Mr. Prashast Puri.
Counsel for Respondents :-
Government Advocate, Mr. Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Mr. R.B.S. Rathaur, Mr. Shashank Dhaon, Mr. Shikhar Mishra and Mr. Tushar Hirwani.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
(Per Saroj Yadav,J for the 'Bench') (Oral)
1. Heard Mr. Nadeem Murtaza and Mr. Prashant Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (in short Constitution) has been filed by the petitioners to quash the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) registered at Case Crime No.0531 of 2020, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) at Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow and not to proceed, prosecute or arrest the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R.
3. Previously, after going through the record and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the private respondent No.4, this Court gathered that prima-facie the case relates to business/corporate transactions and the F.I.R. has been lodged due to some personal feud between two real brothers. This Court deemed it proper to persuade the parties to settle the dispute amicably. 'Abraham Lincoln' has said "discourage litigation persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time." Hence the Court with the consent of petitioners and respondent No.4 gave them chance to settle their dispute amicably through the process of Mediation/Conciliation. Accordingly, the matter was so referred.
4. Today the counsel for the petitioners as well as private respondent No.4 appeared and submitted that they have settled their dispute amicably with the help of Mediator and blessings of the mother of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. So F.I.R. may be quashed, as there is no dispute or bickerings left between the petitioners and respondent No.4. The counsel for the petitioners as well as private respondent relied upon the following case laws:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
2. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303.
3. Narinder Singh and anothers Vs. State of Punjab (2014) Criminal Law Journal 2436.
4. Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641.
5. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others (2018) 10 SCC 443.
5. This Court is empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) and under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R. in certain circumstances and relating to certain offences. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335, Hon'ble the Apex Court has considered in detail the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the F.I.R.
6. In B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court again explained the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings.
7. In Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677, where the dispute was settled between the parties on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
" 30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised?
31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise."
8. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma Vs. State of others (2008) 16 SCC 1 has held as under:-
" 27. There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases, (like those akin to a civil nature) the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, preferably by a larger bench (so as to make it more authoritative). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection and the matter cannot be left at the sole unguided discretion of Judges, otherwise there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial discretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria, and not on the whims and fancies of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot."
9. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2017) 9 SCC 641 the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles in this regard as under:-
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1 Section 482 preserves the inherent powers 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.
16.2 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.
16.3 In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint 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.
16.4 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.
16.5. 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.
16.6. In the 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 appropriately 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.
16.7 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. 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.
16.9. 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 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (16.8) and (16.9) 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."
10. In Anita Maria Dias Vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 290 the Hon'ble Apex Court re-hashed the principles and guidelines about the quashing of the F.I.R on the basis of mutual settlement, this was a case where an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act. The parties settled their dispute through mutual compromise. The Apex Court while passing the order to quash the F.I.R. observed as under:-
7. In a case like this, where the proceedings are still at initial and nascent stage, the High Court should have exercised its discretion in quashing the proceedings. Law in this behalf is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court including Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
11. From the perusal of the judgment in Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others(supra) it is apparent that similar line of ratio was propounded/summarised by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. In Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others (2021) 5 SCC 524 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
18.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case laws makes it clear that an F.I.R. can be quashed on the basis of mutual compromise arrived at between the parties, even if an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. relating to certain offences considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present matter the dispute between petitioners and private respondent (respondent No.4) relates to business/corporate transactions. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are real brothers and petitioner No.2 is wife of the petitioner No.1. They on the initiative of this Court, with blessings of their mother and sincere efforts of mediators and their counsel have settled their dispute amicably. The terms and conditions of settlement has been written down in the settlement deed dated 08.10.2021. Thus it appears just to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered at Case Crime No.0531 of 2020, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420 and 406 of I.P.C. at Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. is quashed on the basis of compromise between the petitioners and respondent No.4. The settlement deed dated 08.10.2021 shall remain integral part of this order.
15. The counsel for the petitioners is directed to upload the settlement deed dated 08.10.2021.
16. Office is directed to issue the certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of settlement deed dated 08.10.2021.
17. Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 deserve appreciation of this Court for putting their efforts to get the dispute settled between the parties amicably. Their efforts are commendable.
(Saroj Yadav, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.)
Order Date :- 09.11.2021
A.K.Singh