Compromise suit clubbed together and the compromise was granted: High Court of Uttarakhand

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ PetitionNo. 15421 Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Advocates : Mr. R. Jawahar Lal Advocate along with Mr. Ramji Shrivastava Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant Add. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma J. Through Hybrid Mode) The defect(s) as pointed out by the Registry of this Court this Court is inclined to ignore the same. The petitioner before this Court has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs: issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the Order Notice dated 26.07.2021 Annexure 9 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4. a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously and within a time bound manner decide the Stay Application first and also the First Appealfiled by the Petitioner. issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and iv) award costs of the petition to the Petitioner throughout.” In fact the principal challenge which has been given by the petitioner company is to the Notice which has been issued by the respondent No. 4 herein i.e. the Tehsildar whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Tehsildar on 03.08.2021 in order to 2 submit its reply as against the issuance of recovery citation under Section 280 to be read with Rule 236 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in order to have their say with regard to the propriety of the recovery sought to be made pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that as against the tax due to be paid and assessed to be paid by the petitioner company for the said financial year they had a remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act and according to their pleadings raised in the writ petition as against the assessment order and the rectification of the assessment order made by the orders dated 17.08.2020 and 15.10.2020 the petitioner company had already preferred an Appeal on 04.12.2020 which is duly supported with the Stay Application and the same is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority and it could not be considered on account of the prevailing pandemic The petitioner company is apprehending that on account of non consideration of the pending Stay Application which was preferred by them with an Appeal under Section 51 of the Act the respondents may proceed on the basis of the impugned Notice dated 26.07.2021 and are likely to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner company for the recovery of the tax amount which was assessed due to be paid by them for the year 2016 17. The learned Addl. CSC for the State had raised an objection to the effect that for the purposes of entertaining of an Appeal under Section 57 of the Act there are certain embargoes which are imposed by sub Section of Section 51 of the Act. His argument at this stage would not be sustainable in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason being that the Appeal itself and the Stay Application which has been filed in support thereto is yet to be considered by the competent Appellate Authority on merits 3 hence at this stage this Court need not to venture into the argument as extended by the learned Addl. CSC for the State under Section 51(7) of the Act and its implication because it may affect independent adjudication of Appeal and stay application filed in support thereto . Be that as it may. At this situation looking to the reliefs which have already been extracted above this writ petition would stand disposed of with the following directions: As far as the Notice dated 26.07.2021 is concerned since it was only a notice of appearance given to the petitioner company to appear before the Tehsildar in order to submit their objection or reply to the Notice for recovery the petitioner is granted 10 days’ time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to approach before respondent No. 4 through any designated authority of theirs in order to file a reply to the said Notice and for a period of 10 days of filing of an objection before the Tehsildar i.e. respondent No. 4 herein no coercive measures as against the said Notice would be taken against the petitioner company and the objection would be decided by respondent No. 4 on its merits. In para 43 of the writ petition the petitioner company has specifically pleaded that initially the Appellate Authority was with the respondent No. 3 at Haldwani before whom the petitioner company had preferred an Appeal under Section 57 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act along with the Stay Application which was pending consideration. But subsequently the appellate power has now been conferred upon the Additional Commissioner Appeals Commercial Tax Dehradun as such it may takes some time for the records of the Appeal which had been preferred before respondent No. 3 at Haldwani to be transferred to respondent No. 2 for consideration of the Appeal as well as the Stay Application which has been preferred by the petitioner company. In order to meet this peculiar contingencies respondent No. 3 is directed that in case if his appellate jurisdiction has now been conferred with respondent No. 2 he would ensure to remit the records of the Appeal expeditiously before respondent No. 2 within the aforesaid period of 10 days. As soon as the records of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner company under Section 51 of the Act at Haldwani is transferred by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 2 is requested to consider the Stay Application of the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act within a period of one month thereafter and pass an appropriate order on the same exclusively in accordance with law. Subject to above observations the writ petition stands disposed Sharad Kumar Sharma J.) 

Summary: In the present case,  the petition arises out of the same crime number and hence they are clubbed together and decided by a common order. The applicants applied Sec-482 to quash the proceedings dated 08.08.2018 arisen out of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A of IPC one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties have filed compromise applications, praying that the parties have buried the differences and have settled the dispute amicably. The compromise is notarised by the Notary. The offences under Sections 323, 504 and 504 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereas offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable. The present matter relates to a matrimonial discord that has now been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise between them. According to the Apex Court to secure the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Also according to the principle established by the Apex Court,” 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; The court held that the complainant has settled the dispute amicably with the applicants and does not want to prosecute the applicants further, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants.