Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1489 (ALL)

Anuj Pandey v. State of U. P.

2022-09-16

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The preset writ petition has been filed for following prayers: “I) a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 18.5.2022 lodged against the petitioner as a Case Crime No. 0209 of 2022 under Sections 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC, Police Station, Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar & all the proceedings arising out of the same. II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the Case Crime NO. 0209 of 2022 under Sections 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC, Police Station, Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar. III) Any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. So that justice may be done. IV) And award cost of the petition.” 3. The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by one Ashok Kumar Shah as authorized representative of Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. against accused persons namely Vineet Kumar Mishra, Prerna Dwivedi, Vijay Kumar Shukla, Anuj Pandey, Arun Mishra and other unknown persons under Sections 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC wherein it has been alleged by informant that the accused Vineet Kumar Mishra was the employee in the informant’s company, who entered into the company as employee by way of Employee Service Agreement dated 5.2.2004 and subsequently was promoted as Chairman and C.E.O. (Lighting). He was engaged in dealing with works and transactions related with lighting including purchasing of raw material, supply/selection of vendors, production, sale and payment matters with customer and suppliers. Recently the fact came into the knowledge of company that the accused Vineet Kumar Mishra was doing the work against the interest of company. He had set up his personal business module with vendors and other persons. He had acquired so many properties by using misappropriation of funds of company and incorporated his own company namely R.R.D.M Inovation Pvt. Ltd. in which his relatives and family members who were holding the managing posts in company and were engaged in parallel work by dealing with customers and dealers of informant’s company. He was found guilty in the internal/disciplinary enquiry also. By the activities of accused, the company fell in huge loss. He was found guilty in the internal/disciplinary enquiry also. By the activities of accused, the company fell in huge loss. It has been shown that the petitioner, who is employee of the complainant company, in collusion with the aforesaid Vineet Kumar Mishra helped him to do the acts against the interest of company. The active connivance of petitioner caused substantial loss to the complainant company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Vineet Kumar Mishra was working as employee in Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Some dispute arose in between him and his employer regarding the salary and other dues, consequently, the employer has lodged the FIR in question against Vineet Kumar Mishra and other employees of company including petitioner with exaggeration. Now a good sense has prevailed between the petitioner and complainant company by intervention of some respectable persons and they have entered into a compromise dated 7.11.2022. After the execution of the agreement of compromise, the relation between petitioner and the company/Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. has become normal and cordial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in furtherance of the deed of settlement, both the parties conceded to settle their dispute and submitted the aforesaid deed of compromise into the Court. The present petition had been connected with the petition of Vineet Kumar Mishra bearing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7122 of 2022; in leading petition. On 16.7.2022, the Court has passed the following order: “This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 0209 of 2022, under Sections 420, 409, 506, 120B IPC, P.S. Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Compromise affidavits filed on behalf of the parties are taken on record. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the dispute has come to be amicably resolved between the parties, as such, pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303 . Considering the aforesaid fact, let the parties may place the compromise settlement deed before the I.O. concerned. The same is liable to be duly endorsed in the case diary. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the parties may place the compromise settlement deed before the I.O. concerned. The same is liable to be duly endorsed in the case diary. After verifying the parties, the adequate report may also be placed before the Court on the next date of listing. Sri S.N.Mishra prays for and is accorded two weeks' time to do the needful in the matter. Put up this matter again on 27.7.2022.” The compliance report is on record. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have settled their dispute and if the criminal proceedings/enquiry in pursuance of the FIR will continue, no fruitful purpose would be served rather it will cause the harassment of petitioner as well as the complainant company M/s Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd., therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the prayer of petitioner regarding quashing of impugned FIR be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has conceded that the said dispute between the parties was private in nature and both the parties have settled their dispute and at present the opposite party no. 4/complainant company has no grievance against petitioner, therefore, if the prayer of petitioner for quashing the FIR is allowed then in that case, the respondent no. 4/complainant company will not have any objection. 7. Learned AGA also has not disputed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Both the contesting parties have arrived at a compromise. In such a situation, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass a suitable order as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law to secure the ends of justice. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Sharma and Ors.Vs. State of U.P and Ors. [2017(Suppl.)ADJ 613] has held in para 7 which reads as under: "7. A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the Court's process may be averted. State of U.P and Ors. [2017(Suppl.)ADJ 613] has held in para 7 which reads as under: "7. A perusal of the case law referred herein above makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its judicial countenance to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in such matters so that the abuse of the Court's process may be averted. Even in the cases which involved non compoundable offences their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. A criminal litigation emanating from matrimonial dispute has been found to be the proceedings of the same class where the inherent jurisdiction of this Court may be suitably exercised if the parties inter-se have mutually decided to bury the hatchet and settle the matter amicably in between them. There are many other litigations which may also fall in the same class even though they do not arise out of matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which are quintessentially of civil nature and other criminal litigations which do not have grave and deleterious social fall-outs may also be settled between the parties. In such matters also when parties approached the Court jointly with the prayer to put an end to the criminal litigations in which they had formerly locked their horns, or if the record or the mediation centre's report indicates a rapprochement in between the parties, the Court in the wider public interest may suitably exercise its power and terminate the pending proceedings. Such positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction can also find its vindication in a more pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a case or the victim of the offence itself expresses its resolve not to give evidence against the accused in the back drop of the compromise between the parties inter-se or if the fact of inter-se compromise in between the parties is apparent on the face of record, and they are still called upon to depose in the Court, they in all probability, go back on their words and resile from their previous statements, the truthfulness of which is best known only to themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. They are in such circumstances very likely to eat their words and perjure themselves. The solemn proceedings of the Court often get reduced to a sham exercise and farce in such circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and in such circumstances, the prospect of the conviction gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a futile exercise in vain and the precious time of Court is attended with nothing except a cruel wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are the offences against the State and the inter-se compromise between the litigants cannot be countenanced with and the Court despite the rapprochement arrived at in between the parties, would still not like to terminate the prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes of very grave nature entailing far reaching deleterious ramifications against the society. In those matters, the Courts do not encourage either mediation or a compromise through negotiation and even the Apex Court has carved out exceptions and did not approve the quashing of non-compoundable offences regardless of their gravity. The Courts have to be discreet and circumspect and must see whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is indeed serving the ends of justice or to the contrary defeating the same." In present case, if despite compromise, parties of litigation be compelled to prosecute and to face the trial, no useful purpose will be served. On the point another Bench of this Court had occasioned to discuss the power of the Court in the case of Nazmul Hasan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [ 2018 (7) ADJ 245 ] in which it has held in paras 15 which read as under: "15. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties on 7.5.2018, as extracted above in paragraph 5 and the categorical stand of the opposite party No.3 before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report lodged by opposite party No. 3. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Ors. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to quash the impugned First Information Report as continuation of the proceedings of the First Information Report would be a futile exercise. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Ors. [ 2013 (4) ADJ 40 ] the Apex Court considering the previous judgments of the Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceedings can be quashed by this court under its inherent power on the basis of mutual settlement. The Apex Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. Vs. Radhika and another [2011 CJ (SC) 239] has scrutinized the legal position in case of compromise in criminal cases in which the dispute was private in nature and continuation of proceeding will be sheer abuse of process of law and in this context the technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing criminal proceeding. Although the power should be used by the court sparingly. It has been held by Apex Court by referring the previous judgments that: "11. That brings to the decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Abbot' case (supra)whereby the High Court had declined the prayer for quashing of the prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 409, 418, 506/34 IPC despite a compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused. The High Court had taken the view that since the offence punishable under Section 406 was not compoundable the settlement between the parties could not be recognized nor the pending proceedings quashed. This Court summed up the approach to be adopted in such cases in the following words: "6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs 250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No. 155 dated 17-11-2001 PS Kotwali,Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed." 12. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, MANU/SC/7957/2008 : 2008 (9) SCC 677 where relying upon the decision in B.S.Joshi (supra), this Court took note of the settlement arrived at between the parties and quashed the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC and held that since the criminal proceedings had the overtone of a civil dispute which had been amicably settled between the parties it was a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings since the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. We may also at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (2008) 16 SCC 1 . This Court observed: "8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first formation report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. 9. As we have indicated herein before, the exercise of power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. 9. As we have indicated herein before, the exercise of power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility." In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 CJ (SC) 1114] the Apex Court has discussed the scope of compromise where the disputes are private in nature and quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of mutual compromise. The relevant paras of the case are reproduced as under: "30. In the instant case, the disputes between the Company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them where under the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the Company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised? 31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated here in above and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi's case (supra) and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise." The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. MANU/SC/8122/2008 : (2008) 16 SCC 1 has observed in para 8 which reads as under: “8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case.” 9. While quashing the first information report under Sections 379, 406, 409 and 418 IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 555 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4579 of 2006) decided on 26.3.2008) has observed in para 5 which reads as under: “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250/-which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant factor in the later case. We accordingly allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case, direct that FIR No.155 dated 17th November 2001 P.S. Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” 10. In view of above, considering the submission of learned counsels of both the contesting parties and observations of Apex Court as well as of this Court, in the opinion of the Court, the High Court has ample power under its inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report in which the parties have settled their disputes which are of private in nature and have no any grave impact on the society. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak. 11. The time of courts as well as investigating agencies are very precious which should not be wasted in any futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned First Information Report dated 18.5.2022 lodged against the petitioner as a Case Crime No. 0209 of 2022 under Sections 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC, Police Station, Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar is hereby quashed.