Allowed

Mr Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023A482/7318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed to quash charge sheet and proceedings in a criminal case under Section 482 CrPC. Court allowed application subject to deposit of costs, holding that real dispute was civil and settled between other parties, making continuation of prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 14.9.2021 and pending proceedings in the said case are quashed subject to payment of cost Rs. 5,000/- within three weeks.

Mr Rajesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7318 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mr Rajesh Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Mohiley Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anupam Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anoop Shukla learned counsel holding brief of learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14.9.2021 in Case Crime No. 968 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar and to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

On 05.8.2022, following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Case No.968 of 2017 pending in the court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar, P.S. Sector-20 as well as Charge sheet dated 14.9.2021 in Case Crime No.968 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, P.S. Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and opposite party no. 2 have settled their dispute. However, the physical verification of the same is required to be made by the court concerned.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.3 do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and he has no objection to it.

¶12

Accordingly, it is provided that both the parties shall appear before the court below on 22.08.2022 and shall file an application along with a certified copy of this order for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the court below may verify the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send verification report to this Court before the next date of listing of the case.

¶13

List this case on 05.09.2022 in the additional cause list along with the verification report.

¶14

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant."

¶15

4.In compliance of thereof, learned court below has refused to verify the compromise vis-a-vis present applicant inasmuch as the applicant was not a party to the settlement reached between the main accused party and the informant.

¶16

As to that, it has been submitted, real dispute had arisen between Nupur Agrawal (first informant) one one side with Ms. Bushra Aslam, Nishant Arora, Awadhesh Goel and Vikas Gupta. The last two being the Directors of the company Earth Infrastructures Ltd. (EIL). The applicant came to be charge sheeted not on the strength of the F.I.R. allegation but during the course of investigation.

¶17

In any case, upon earlier 482 Application No. 30349 of 2021 being filed by Awadhesh Goel and two others, the matter was settled between those parties through a compromise verified by the learned court below on 18.3.2016. In terms of that, below quoted order was passed in those proceedings on 07.1.2022:

¶18

"Sri Anupam Dubey, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶20

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 20090 of 2018 (State vs. Busra Aalam and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 968 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶21

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are the directors of the company, which runs as Earth Infrastructure Ltd. (EIL) and the main object of the company was doing business in construction work and opposite party no. 2 has booked a plot, which was not given to him by the applicants due to various contains and applicant have offered opposite party no. 2 that either she may take another flat or she may take her payment back.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise and and have settled their dispute amicably by way of compromise, which has also been

¶23

verified by the court below on 18.03.2016.

¶24

Sri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 have settled through compromise and opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no. 2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶26

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶28

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed."

¶29

Since no separate or independent allegations have been made against the applicant and the real dispute brought by Ms. Nupur Agrawal is seen to have been settled in terms of the written compromise dated 18.3.2016 drawn between her and Awadhesh Goel and others, no real purpose may be served in allowing the present prosecution to continue.

¶30

In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.1.2023, it has been observed as under:

¶31

"6. From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the

¶32

proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.

¶33

7. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though the allegations made in the FIR do appear to contain the ingredients of a criminal offence, however, in view of settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but, if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up practically in all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

¶34

8. In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. However, that course does not commend to the court in view of the high pendency of criminal cases and the high propensity to lie and state falsehood that appears to be otherwise rampant in the society - where desire to take revenge appears to sometime over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching lesson to one's adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding.

¶35

9. Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court - to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach.

¶36

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶37

11. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed, subject however to payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today. Such cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in particular and the society in general know that the courts cannot remain a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant behaviour of its members. A society that will allow its members to misuse its courts, will ultimately suffer and pay a huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always continue to stand in a common queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigants. That differentiation emerges only after the hearing is concluded in any case, hearing requires time. In fact, even if the courts were to take punitive action against a bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules of procedure and fairness, such cases are likely to require more time to be devoted to them than a case of two genuine litigants."

¶38

In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further,

¶39

however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed , subject however to payment of cost Rs. 5,000/- (2,500 on each private party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶40

The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the benefit of those litigants for whom court procedures are difficult to afford. It provides a crucial and essential service to the society itself. It thus appears proper to direct payment of the amount of cost to the Legal Services Committee, as a reminder and warning to the society and its members to introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds and also at the consequences that follow.

¶41

Subject to the above, the the charge sheet dated 14.9.2021 in Case Crime No. 968 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar and the proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, are quashed.

¶42

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Faraz

¶43

Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mr Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Manoj Goyal @ Neetu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Awadhes Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bheem Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naheem and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejendra Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Raja Beti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another