Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 370 (UTT)

VIKAS KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-31

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. No.78 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A joint compounding application also been filed by the parties, which is supported by the affidavits of the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 and also an affidavit of a Mitrapal, Parokar of petitioner no.3, who is in jail. Petitioner no.1-Vikas Kumar, petitioner no.2-Surabhi and petitioner no.4 Raj @ Sonu @ Aman Yadav are present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate. Petitioner no.3 Mahendra Singh is reported to be in Jail. Respondent no.3 Umesh Agrawal is also present in person before this Court duly identified by Mr. Kishore Rai, Advocate. Petitioners and respondent no.3 state before the Court that they have amicably settled the dispute. 4. According to F.I.R. on 28.04.2019, petitioner Mahendra Singh opened a trust and induced the first informant, who is respondent no.3 herein and others to contribute in the trust on the assurance that it will pay huge returns. After maturity when the first informant and others enquired about their money, it was not paid. In this act of petitioner no.3 Mahendra Singh other petitioners helped him. 5. Learned counsel for the parties informed that the parties have entered into amicable settlement and now living in harmony. 6. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 6 (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon'ble Court, interalia, held as under: 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 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 viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. 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……………………………………………….. 7. Parties have already settled their dispute amicably. In fact, if the trial proceeds now, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. It would not secure the ends of justice. In fact, interest of justice demands that the criminal case is put to an end. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since parties have amicably settled their dispute, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.78 of 2019, under Section 420 of I.P.C., P.S. I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed qua the petitioners. Petitioner no.3 Mahendra Singh is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 9. Compounding Application No.7706 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.