Allahabad High Court
Aarnav Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12435 of 2021 Petitioner :- Aarnav Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Impleadment Application For the reasons disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of impleadment application, which constitutes sufficient cause, impleadment application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary impleadment in the array of parties forthwith.
Ref: Writ Petition Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and Shri Ashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant.
Present matter was taken up on 22.12.2021 and on the said date, following interim order was accorded in favour of the petitioners:-
"Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 411 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 447 I.P.C., Police Station - Expressway, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present matter relates to financial transaction, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakh) by way of demand draft on the first date of hearing in the Mediation Centre and for the balance amount, parties may negotiate in the mediation centre.
Since both the parties are represented before this Court, therefore, learned counsel for the parties agree that some date may be fixed before the Mediation Centre for appearance of the parties.
As agreed, parties shall appear on 19.01.2022 before the Mediation Centre subject to condition that petitioner shall produce a demand draft of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) and the same shall be handed over to the respondent no.3 on the first date of mediation.
In view of the above, it is directed that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court and same shall be retained by the Mediation Centre as mediation fee.
The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
List after expiry of aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the above mentioned case.
It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the mediation charges and fails to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, (rupees twenty lakh) as agreed or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter."
In response thereof, the parties have appeared before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and eventually, the settlement agreement took place on 19.01.2022 between Aarnav Sharma/petitioner no.1 and Ajay Kumar Gupta/respondent no.3.
It is contended that in terms of aforesaid settlement, the parties are not interested to continue the present criminal proceeding. It is jointly submitted that this being an offshoot of a dispute, same has come to be resolved and as such the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the present dispute has come to an end.
The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings of First Information Report dated 30.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No.411 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 447 I.P.C., Police Station - Expressway, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar are quashed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022 A. Pandey