Allahabad High Court
Sachin Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2489
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 66 A.F.R. Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14261 of 2020 Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Admit.
3. Sri S.K. Pal, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. waives his right to file a counter affidavit, looking to the nature of the controversy involved.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a compromise has been arrived at between parties and recorded on 14.07.2020, engrossed on a general stamp worth Rs. 100/-. It has been notarized. In furtherance of the said compromise, a compromise affidavit has been filed before this Court today, which is unsigned and unsworn. It is supported by a declaration. A declaration instead of a sworn affidavit was permitted when there was a nationwide lockdown. Now, the nation is abuzz with life but in the Registry of the Court it appears that it is not business as usual. The Registrar General is directed to examine the feasibility of restoring a suitably modified requirement of filing sworn affidavits by parties. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the present matter is being heard on the status of papers filed in Court as per practice current at this time.
5. A perusal of the first information report, which after some investigation has culminated into a chargesheet, shows that the applicant, Sachin Kumar Srivastava is a businessman engaged in the business of running a printing press. It is alleged in the FIR that he asked the informant, opposite party no.2 to invest in business which would yield good profit. It is also alleged that it was represented to complainant-opposite party no.2 that the sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- that she was invited to invest would be returned to her, and in the profit of 40% that the parties would earn, there would be sharing on the basis of 50% each. It is alleged in the FIR that at some stage, the applicant turned dishonest and did not refund her money. It is also alleged that when the informant demanded her money, the applicant said that their partnership cannot continue and it is better that they part ways. It was also represented to the informant, as part of this dissolution, that the applicant would pay the informant-opposite party no.2, a sum of Rs. 19,000/- per mensem and in that manner would repay the principal sum of money within a period of three years. It is alleged that two cheques, mentioned in the FIR, when presented on 10.05.2018 and 07.06.2018, were dishonored: one on account of signatures of the account holder not tallying, and the other, due to the account being closed. It is alleged that the informant contacted the applicant about the dishonored cheques whereupon the applicant promised that he would arrange and pay the money due. It is said that a period of four months elapsed but to no avail. There are then certain allegations of a sharp exchange of words and a threat extended.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR and the criminal prosecution based on it discloses no offence whatsoever. Still, he submits in tandem with the learned counsel appearing for the second opposite party that the parties have compromised the matter privately, which they have reduced to writing. It is on that basis that an affidavit of compromise (with all its infirmities) above described, has been brought on record before this Court. The terms of the compromise recorded between parties, as these appear from a perusal of a photostat copy of the compromise dated 14.07.2020, are as follows:
सुलहनामा रंजू श्रीवास्तव पत्नी सुशील कुमार श्रीवास्तव, निवासी- बसंत बिहार कालोनी, 10 नम्बर बोरिंग थाना-गोरखनाथ, जनपद गोरखपुर।
....... प्रथम पक्ष व सचिन श्रीवास्तव पुत्र रघुनाथ लाल प्रो०दृष्टिप्रेस शाप नं०-16 एम०पी० बिल्डिंग गोलघर, थाना कैण्ट, जनपद-गोरखपुर निवासी ग्राम- भम्भौर नरकटवा बाजार थाना कैम्पियरगंज, जनपद गोरखपुर हाल मुकाम- राजेन्द्र नगर कालोनी, कूरावारी राजेन्द्र नगर पश्चिमी म०न०-178-जे, थाना गोरखनाथ, जनपद- गोरखपुर।
......द्वितीय पक्ष
1. यह कि हम प्रथम पक्ष व द्वितीय पक्ष ने आपस मे मिलकर एक संयुक्त व्यापार शुरू किया था और उसी उद्देश्य से हम दोनो पक्षों के मध्य लेन-देन हुआ था और उसी सम्बन्ध में प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा कुछ की पूंजी द्वितीय पक्ष के माध्यम से व्यापार में लगाई गई थी परन्तु किन्ही कारणों की वजह से संयुक्त व्यवसाय आगे नही बढ़ सका और द्वितीय पक्ष के उपर प्रथम पक्ष की कुछ देनदारी शेष रह गई।
2. यह कि उसी संयुक्त व्यवसाय में जो देनदारी द्वितीय पक्ष की थी उसी के लिए द्वितीय पक्ष ने प्रथम पक्ष को चेक संख्या- 152931 से लगायत चेक संख्या- 152940 तक व 474698 से लगायत 474700 तक कुल 13 चेक दिया था जिसमें से कुछ चेक आपसी सामन्जस्य न होने के कारण प्रयाप्त धनराशि न होने के कारण अनादृत हो गया था।
3. यह कि चेक अनादृत होने के कारण प्रथम पक्ष ने द्वितिय पक्ष के विरूद्ध परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम की धारा- 138 के तहत कुल चार परिवाद दाखिल किया है जिसमें परिवाद संख्या 4452/18, 1443/19,231/19, व 2449/19 है जो न्यायालय श्रीमान् ए०सी०जे०एम०- प्रथम के न्यायालय में लम्बित है।
4. यह कि प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा द्वितीय पक्ष के विरूद्ध एक आपराधिक मुकदमा अपराध संख्या- 370/19 अ०धारा-406,506,420 भा०द०वि० थाना- गोरखनाथ, जनपद- गोरखपुर में दर्ज कराया गाय था जिसमें आरोप- पत्र न्यायालय में दाखिल हो चुका है तथा पत्रावली न्यायालय ए०सी०जे०एम०-प्रथम के न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है।
5. यह कि हम दोनों पक्षों ने मित्रों, रिश्तेदारों एवं बुजुर्गों के समझाने के उपरान्त अपनी स्वतंत्र इच्छा व सहमति से आपस में यह निर्णय लिया है कि आपसी सहमति द्वारा आपसी लेन-देन को समाप्त कर लिया जाये तथा उसी आधार पर समस्त मुकदमों को भी समाप्त करा दिया जाये।
6. यह की समझौते के अनुरूप यह तय हुआ है कि द्वितीय पक्ष, प्रथम पक्ष को कुल मु०-13,00,000/- (तेरह लाख रूपये) देंगे। इसके अलावा अन्य कोई धनराशि या मशीनरी द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा प्रथम पक्ष को देय नही होगी।
7. यह कि समझौते की शर्त के अनुसार द्वितीय पक्ष प्रथम् पक्ष को तत्काल मु०- 5,00,000/- (पांच लाख रूपये) डी०डी०- द्वारा देंगे तथा शेष धनराशि मु०-8,00,000/- (आठ लाख रूपये) जब प्रथम पक्ष आपराधिक मुकदमा मु०अ०सं०-370/19, थाना गोरखनाथ को समाप्त करायेंगे तो उसी दिन द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा प्रथम पक्ष को भुगतान किया जायेगा।
8. यह कि चूंकि आपराधिक मु० 370/19 में पत्रावली में द्वितीय पक्ष के विरूद्ध एन०बी०डब्लू० की कार्यवाही चल रही है। इसलिए दोनो पक्षों में यह तय हुआ है कि प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा मु०- 5,00,000/- (पांच लाख रूपये) प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा उपरोक्त मुकदमें को सुलह के आधार पर समाप्त करने हेतु माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में याचिका दायर की जायेगी तथा पत्रावली मध्यस्थता में जब रहती है। उसी दौरान शेष धनराशि मु०- 8,00,000/- रूपये का भुगतान द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा प्रथम पक्ष को कर दिया जायेगा और प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा मुकदमा समाप्त करने की सहमति मध्यस्थता केन्द्र उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में कर दी जायेगी जिससे की उपरोक्त आपराधिक मुकदमा समाप्त हो जाये तथा उसी समय सारे चेक भी प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा द्वितीय पक्ष को वापस कर दिये जायेंगे और उसके उपरान्त सम्बन्धित अदालत में लम्बित चारों परिवाद को भी प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा वापस ले लिया जायेगा।
9. यह कि समझौते की शर्तों के अनुसार समझौते की प्रक्रिया के दौरान होने वाले सभी प्रकार के खर्चे की जिम्मेदारी द्वितीय पक्ष की होगी।
10. यह कि हम प्रथम पक्ष ने द्वितीय पक्ष से मु०-5,00,000/- का डी०डी० जो इलाहाबाद बैंक सेन्ट एण्ड्रयूज शाखा द्वारा जारी है। तथा जिस पर दिनांक 07.07.2020 की तिथि अंकित है। तथा जिसका नम्बर- 163458 है। प्राप्त कर लिया है। डी०डी० की छाया प्रति संलग्नक-1 है तथा उसकी छाया प्रति पर दोनों पक्षों ने हस्ताक्षर बना दिये है।
11. यह कि उपरोक्त सुलहनामा हम दोनों पक्षों द्वारा अपनी स्वतंत्र इच्छा व सहमति से बिना किसी जब्र व दबाव के समक्ष गवाहान लिख कर तसदीक करा दिया ताकि वक्त जरूरत पर काम आवे।
दिनांक-14/7/2020 हस्ताक्षर प्रथम पक्ष हस्ताक्षर द्वितीय पक्ष गवाहान: Sd. Illegible
7. Though, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coercive processes before the Magistrate may be ordered to stay for some time till the terms of compromise embodied, are implemented and liabilities of the parties discharged, this Court is not minded to lend the process of criminal court to abuse by parties out to recover claims that are essentially based on business transactions, giving rise to civil liabilities. This Court cannot help but notice the ravaging trend of abuse of process of criminal law to recover essentially civil claims and to settle disputes, that rightfully ought to go to the Civil Court. Much of this practice is contributed to by the time consuming process involved in the Civil Courts deciding actions.
8. This Court must also remark that the delays in Civil Courts are largely on account of persistent strikes by Members of the Civil Bar that are succumbed to by the Presiding Officers, leading to frequent adjournments of civil causes. This Court is aware of the fact that the processes of the Civil Court do take time, which they ought not. The civil process is designed to move at a fast pace, which unfortunately for the present remains unrealized. This, however, does not mean that civil claims can be permitted to be converted into criminal complaints and prosecutions, which they are not.
9. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rashmi Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2014) 13 SCC 533. It has been held in Rashmi Jain:
"6. .......... In our opinion, the aforesaid averment has been made only to foist criminal liability on the appellant by converting a purely civil dispute into criminal act, alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The allegations are absurd and outlandish on the face of it; firstly, the appellant is a lady, a widow, who was not accompanied by anybody else at the time of the alleged occurrence; secondly, she, though being a resident of Delhi, misbehaved with number of high and mighty parties with whom she had earlier transacted business at Moradabad. In our opinion, these are allegations which on the face of it, cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable person. The High Court, in our opinion, has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the criminal petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be gone into by the trial court."
10. Again in M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. And others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, their Lordships of the Supreme Court frowned upon civil causes being converted into cases alleging criminal liability and held:
"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
11. Reliance may also be placed on a decision of this Court in Kapur Chand Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (3) ACR 2797, where with reference to a prosecution under Section 406 IPC in the background of an issue between parties about a part of the price of goods supplied, that remain unpaid by the accused to the complainant, it was held by Vinod Prasad, J.:
"10. On an over all analysis it emerges that the complaint does not discloses commission of any offence whatsoever against the applicant and whatever has been alleged discloses only a civil liability and applicant's prosecution is wholly undesirable and illegal and it is nothing but his harassment and, therefore, is liable to be quashed."
12. The present case is undisputedly a commercial transaction between parties, involving partnership and its dissolution under the law. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had an intention to cheat at the inception of the transaction. It is just that the venture contemplated by parties did not take off and turn profitable as envisaged. Ex facie there is nothing shown by the police that may indicate that the applicant ever intended to cheat opposite party no.2. It would ideally and eminently give rise to a cause of action for a suit of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Instead of adopting that course, the second opposite party has approached the police, who again very unscrupulously have investigated and filed a chargesheet in the matter, which indeed presents no criminal angle to it. The settlement that has been arrived at outside Court reaffirms this Court's faith in the perversion of the process of Court that has become rampant. The agreement dated 14.07.2020 is nothing but the result of an abuse of process of the criminal court under which one of the parties have buckled to settle the matter for the fear of the criminal process. There cannot be a more brazen abuse of process of the criminal court than the one presented here. This Court is of opinion that the impugned proceedings cannot be permitted to continue.
13. In the result this application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned charge sheet No. 357 of 2018, dated 08.12.2018 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 370 of 2019, State vs. Sachin Kumar Srivastava (arising out of Case Crime No. 412 of 2018) under Section 406,506,420 I.P.C., P.S. Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur are hereby quashed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur shall ensure that an endorsement is made in the G.D. of the police station concerned that the proceedings of this case have been quashed under orders of this Court.
14. It will be open to the second Opposite Party to recover her dues in accordance with law, in the manner she may be advised.
15. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar General for necessary action.
16. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur through the District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur for compliance by the Office.
Order Date :- 6.10.2020 BKM/-