HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27454 of 2015 Applicant :- [ENTITY] Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- [ENTITY],[ENTITY] Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,[ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY]-I,J.
Heard Ms. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicant, and in opposition, Shri [ENTITY] learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri [ENTITY], learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under [SECTION] of [ACT] has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the framing of charge order dated 03.08.2015 passed by learned C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar in [CASE NUMBER] (State v. [ENTITY] and others), arising out of [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], Police Station - Kakadev, District - Kanpur Nagar and all the consequential proceedings thereon.
From the side of applicant, a compromise affidavit dated 10.08.2019 has been filed, wherein it is mentioned that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute in the following terms and conditions :-
(i) The applicant will transfer the disputed amount of Rs. 33 Lakh in total to complainant Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] R/o-903, Indira Dham, 117/K/13, Sarvodaya Nagar, P S.- Kakadev, District - Kanpur Nagar (Opp. Party No. 2).
(ii) Out of which Rs. 8 lakhs has already been paid by the applicant through the then Broker of the Company, [ENTITY] to [ENTITY] ([ENTITY], husband of [ENTITY]). There is no dispute regarding this. The details of NEFT have also been mentioned in para 5 of the Affidavit.
(iii) The applicants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have also transferred an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh Only) to opp. Party No.2 by UTR No. UTIBR52019080900624206 dated 09.08.2019 of Axis Bank Ltd., Swaroop Nagar, Branch, Kanpur in account of [ENTITY].
(iv) The [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are willing to transfer the remaining amount of Rs. 22 lakhs to Smt. [ENTITY] (Opp. Party No.2) as early as possible and therefore demand draft No. 005995 dated 19.07.2019 in favour of [ENTITY] ([ENTITY], husband of [ENTITY]) of Axis Bank Ltd., Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur is ready and it will be handed over to Opp. Party No.2 or her husband Mr. [ENTITY] before this Court.
(v) It has also been amicably settled between the parties that after the clearance of above referred demand draft of Rs. 22 lakhs, the allotment of Duplex No. 26 (previously allotted in favour of [ENTITY]) will automatically be cancelled and the applicants' firm (Pioneer Construbuild LLP) will be free to sell the said house to any other person. It is also agreed that, the complainant opp. Party No.2 will also hand over the original allotment letter dated 27.02.2012 to the applicants at the time of receiving original demand draft before this Court.
(vi) It has also settled between the parties that Mrs. [ENTITY] (Opp. Party No. 2) and [ENTITY], husband of [ENTITY] shall not create any future demand in this regard and they will not create any future claim on any property of applicants or their firm Pioneer Construbuild LLP.
(vii) It has also been settled between the parties that consumer case no. 87/2015 between '[ENTITY] Vs. Pioneer Construbuild Pvt. Ltd.' pending before Consumer Court, Kanpur and [CASE NUMBER] between '[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Others' under [SECTION] [ACT] pending before M.M.-III, Court of Kanpur Nagar, [ENTITY] shall withdraw the above cases within 15 days from the date of final order of this Court and after this settlement no dispute will remain between the parties.
From the side of opposite party no. 2 in affidavit, it has been admitted that the parties have entered into compromise and the amount which is stated to have been paid, has been admitted and all the terms and conditions have been admitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as has been mentioned in the affidavit of the applicant.
Smt. [ENTITY], opposite party no. 2 was present in Court in connected case on earlier date who had received Demand Draft of Rs. 22 lakhs and who had been identified by her counsel, Sri [ENTITY], photostat copy of the same was annexed at Page No. 18 of compromise affidavit.
Both the parties have prayed that the proceedings may be closed in this case because of no dispute remains between the parties as compromise has taken place between the parties.
It would be pertinent to refer here the law laid down by Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] which is as follows:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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] 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 [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 flavour 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."
Since there is no dispute left between the parties as compromise has taken place between between them, no useful purpose would be served to keep the present proceeding pending. Hence, in view of the above-mentioned law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the proceeding in [CASE NUMBER], arising out of [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], Police Station - Kakadev, District - Kanpur Nagar against the present applicant, [ENTITY] deserves to be quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
In the result, the instant application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 [ENTITY]