Allowed

Manoj Agrawal @ Manoj Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2021A482/4766/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein the parties reached an amicable settlement via a compromise deed. The dispute was deemed private and civil in nature, with remote chances of conviction post-settlement, making further prosecution unjust.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No. 11028 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2020 under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC quashed.

Manoj Agrawal @ Manoj Gupta Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4766 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Agrawal @ Manoj Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Namman Raj Vanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipul Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Namman Raj Vanshi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Vipul Shukla, learned counsel representing opposite party 2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 6.9.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 147 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No. 11028 of 2020 (State Vs. Manoj Gupta) now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Ghaziabad.

¶7

It transpires from record that in respect of incidents which are alleged to have occurred from 20.3.2019 to 9.12.2019, a delayed F.I.R. dated 24.2.2020 was lodged by first informant opposite party 2 Manoj Rastogi and was registered as Case Crime No. 147 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Manoj Garwal @ Manoj Gupta has been nominated as solitary named accused.

¶8

Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R. Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer on the basis of statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and other material collected during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicant, came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused is established in the crime in question. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 6.9.2020 whereby named accused have been charge-sheeted under sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC. After submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 28.10.2020. As a consequence of above, aforementioned criminal case came to be registered. Thereafter, applicant has been summoned in above mentioned criminal case. However, as accused-applicant failed to appear before Court below, bailable warrant was issued against applicant.

¶9

Present application came up for admission on 13.7.2021. On the aforesaid date, it was submitted by learned counsel for applicant that parties have amicably settled their dispute. Accordingly, Court passed following order:

¶10

"Case taken up through video conferencing.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 11028 of 2020 (State vs. Manoj Gupta), relating to case crime no. 147 of 2020, under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court o. 1, Ghaziabad along with charge sheet dated 6.9.2020.

¶13

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise has already been filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure presence of their parties before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 9.8.2021 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date. Put up on 16.8.2021 as fresh. "

¶16

During pendency of present application, first informant opposite party-2 Manoj Rastogi and accused applicant Manoj Agarwal @ Manoj Gupta amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed dated 5.8.2021 was filed before Court below. By means of aforesaid compromise deed it was agreed that applicant Manoj Agarwal @ Manoj Gupta shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,03,620 towards full and final settlement of the dispute. Accordingly a bank draft of aforesaid amount was given by applicant to first informant/opposite party-2. Aforesaid compromise deed has been verified by court below vide order dated 9.8.2021.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant thus contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Morevover, dispute between parties is of civil nature. During pendency of this application, parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise deed dated 5.8.2021 was filed before Court below which has been verified by Court below vide order 9.8.2021. As such, compromise entered into by parties has been acted upon and also verified by Court.

¶18

On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by learned counsel for applicant that once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served, in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Section

¶19

482 Cr. P. C, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. does not oppose this application. He contends that dispute between parites is basically a civil dispute. Parties have already compromised which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no ground exists to continue the prosecution of applicant.

¶21

Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also supported the prayer made by learned counsel for applicant. It is contended by learned counsel for informant/opposite party-2 contends that once first informant/opposite party-2 has himself compromised with accused applicant, then in that eventuality, he cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court. He has further invited attention of Court to averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C, wherein the factum of compromise entered into by parties and its consequential verification by Court below have been duly pleaded.

¶22

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court:

¶23

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675

¶24

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶25

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1

¶26

4. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705

¶27

5. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶28

6. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226

¶29

7. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497

¶30

8. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466

¶31

9. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653

¶32

10. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389

¶33

11. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350

¶34

12. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶35

13. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290

¶36

14. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench)

¶37

15. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570

¶38

16. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶39

17. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716

¶40

18. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736

¶41

19. Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834.

¶42

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. In Dimpey Gujral (supra), it was held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as same fall in the category of crime against society. It was however observed that court should bear in mind that if because of compromise between the parties, 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 accused by not quashing the criminal proceedings, then in that eventuality High Court should quash the proceedings on the ground of compromise. Constitution Bench in Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another (supra) in paragraph 38 of the judgement approved the law laid down by three Judges Bench judgement in Gian Singh (supra) Court then approved the view that criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, another 3 Judges Bench of Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) has observed that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. It was, however, held that proceedings under Section 307 IPC can be quashed in view of compromise entered into by the parties, provided injured has not sustained grievous and fatal injury nor he should have sustained injury on vital part of the body. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶43

Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the judgement, which read as under:

¶44

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions

¶45

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an

¶46

abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

¶47

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.

¶48

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;

¶49

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;

¶50

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;

¶51

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;

¶52

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;

¶53

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;

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

¶57

Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra) , Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:-

¶58

"18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.

¶59

19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

¶60

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions made by counsel for parties and the material on record, this court is of considered opinion that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute and not a crime against society. Dispute between parties, is basically a civil dispute. Moreover, during pendency of present application, parties have already compromised their dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties have been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no difference exists between parties. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicant is remote and bleak. As such continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets.

¶61

In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Consequently, entire proceedings of Case No. 11028 of 2020 (State Vs. Manoj Gupta) arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad, now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Ghaziabad are, hereby, quashed.

¶62

Application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶63

Costs made easy.

¶64

Order Date :- 28.9.2021

¶65

Arshad

Manoj Agrawal @ Manoj Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Agrawal @ Manoj Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Modern Kraft Jain Industries and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hridaynath Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarfaraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh @ Santosh Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another