# Ajit Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 825
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-23
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 6981 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajit-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50302
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
- Sections 320 (5) & 482 - Inherent
power
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Conviction order was passed for noncompoundable offences - Complaints of
wrongful deprivation of the corporate and
commercial rights in the Company by
certain acts of forgery was made - The
disputes was of a civil nature - The
wrongs did not amount to commission of
offence against the society at large -
Relevance - Settlement was taken place
between
the
parties
-
Quashing
of
proceeding sought - How far, High Court
can exercise inherent power - Held, the
Trial
Court
cannot
compound
noncompoundable offences, but the High
Court can quash proceedings of criminal
case
involving
non-compoundable
offences. Similarly, as the appellate Court
could have compounded the offences even
after conviction, had the offences been
compoundable,
applying
the
same
analogy,
this
Court
can
quash
the
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences even after conviction by the trial
Court, where the proceedings deserve to
be quashed keeping in view the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in this regard - High Court quashed the
conviction
order
and
the
entire
proceedings against the applicants by
exercising
inherent
powers
u/s
482
Cr.P.C. (Para 20, 21, 22 and 23)

Application allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ajit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
825
Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others4 is
that any criminal court does not have power
to recall its own order, which is substantive
in nature like order issuing summon.
Therefore in the considered opinion of this
Court, the law laid down by this Court in
Lal Harsh Deo Narain Singh's case
(supra) is distinguishable insofar as in the
instant case, it cannot be said that the
remedy seeking recall of impugned order
dated 14.03.2023 is available to the
applicant in view of restriction contained in
Section 362 Cr.P.C.

19. It is needless to mention that the
power vested with the learned trial court
under
Section
231(2)
Cr.P.C.
is
a
discretionary power, which should be
exercised
judiciously.
Therefore,
the
learned trial court will always be at liberty
to pass appropriate order, in accordance
with law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rasheed's case (supra).

20. The upshot of aforesaid discussion is
that the instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and is,
accordingly,
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge (NIA/ ATS)/ Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Lucknow in S.T. No.13751
of 2021 titled as State vs. Salahuddin and others
arising out of Case Crime No.09 of 2021, under
Sections 417, 120-B, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A,
298, 121-A, 123 I.P.C. and Sections 3/5/8 of
U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2021, Police Station ATS, Gomti
Nagar, is, hereby, set aside.

21. The learned trial court concerned
is also directed to proceed with the trial of
S.T. No.13751 of 2021 titled as State vs.
Salahuddin and others expeditiously having
regard to the provisions contained in
Section 309 Cr.P.C.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 825
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 6981 of 2022

Ajit Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ishan Baghel, Veena Vijayan Rajes

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Anurag Kumar Singh, Shailendra Misra, Shiv P.
Shukla

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
- Sections 320 (5) & 482 - Inherent
power
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Conviction order was passed for noncompoundable offences - Complaints of
wrongful deprivation of the corporate and
commercial rights in the Company by
certain acts of forgery was made - The
disputes was of a civil nature - The
wrongs did not amount to commission of
offence against the society at large -
Relevance - Settlement was taken place
between
the
parties
-
Quashing
of
proceeding sought - How far, High Court
can exercise inherent power - Held, the
Trial
Court
cannot
compound
noncompoundable offences, but the High
Court can quash proceedings of criminal
case
involving
non-compoundable
offences. Similarly, as the appellate Court
could have compounded the offences even
after conviction, had the offences been
compoundable,
applying
the
same
analogy,
this
Court
can
quash
the
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences even after conviction by the trial
Court, where the proceedings deserve to
be quashed keeping in view the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in this regard - High Court quashed the
conviction
order
and
the
entire
proceedings against the applicants by
exercising
inherent
powers
u/s
482
Cr.P.C. (Para 20, 21, 22 and 23)

Application allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. B. S. Joshi Vs St. of Har.; (2003) 4 SCC 675

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr.; (2008) 9 SCC 677

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun.; (2012) 10 SCC 303

4. Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Guj.; (2017) 9 SCC
641

5. St. of M. P. Vs Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC
688

6. P. Dharamaraj Vs Shanmugam & ors.; 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1186

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri I. B. Singh, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Awinash Vishen
Advocate, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the
learned counsel for the respondent- C.B.I
and perused the record.

2. By means of an instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
applicant has prayed for quashing of the
judgment and order of conviction dated
06.06.2019, passed by learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow in
Case No.4603 of 2009, arising out of F.I.R.
registered
as
RC
No.01(S)/2006/CBI/SCB/LKO
dated
12.01.2006, under Sections 120-B, 420,
466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A I.P.C. and all the
consequent proceedings, on the ground that
the informant and the accused persons have
entered into a settlement.

3. The aforesaid case was registered
on the basis of a complaint lodged by the
opposite party no. 2 - Arvind Mohan
Jauhari, against the applicants alleging that
some documents relating to annual returns
of M/s Carlton Hotel Private Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Company')
have been forged for the years 1997, 1998
and 1999. After carrying out a preliminary
inquiry, the C.B.I. lodged an F.I.R on
12.01.2006, against one V. K. Gupta,
F.C.A (applicant no. 3) and some unknown
persons, alleging that in the annual returns
made up to 30.09.1997, 29.09.1998 and
30.09.1999 filed by the Company, some
papers
were
inserted
or
changed
subsequently, evidencing forgery by the
named accused V. K. Gupta, who had
inspected the documents of the Company
on 22.03.2001 and 10.04.2001.

4. The C.B.I. has submitted the
charge-sheet stating that the applicant no. 1
Ajit Singh, was Managing Director of the
Company and the applicant no. 2 Udaijit
Singh, was its Joint Managing Director.
They were the beneficiaries of the aforesaid
act committed by the applicant no. 3, as
they benefited by removal of the names of
the complainants Anand Krishna Johari and
Arvind Mohan Johari from the annual
returns of the 1997, 1998 and 1999.

5. The trial court passed a judgment
and
order
dated
06.06.2019
holding
applicants guilty of commission of offences
under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 468,
471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and all
of them were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and
a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under
Section 120-B I.P.C., two years' simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- for
offence under Section 420 I.P.C., two
years' simple imprisonment and a fine of
5 All. Ajit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
827
Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 466
I.P.C., three years' simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.4000/- for offence under
Section 467 I.P.C., two years' simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- for
offence under Section 468 I.P.C., two
years' simple imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 471
I.P.C. and two years' simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under
Section 477A I.P.C. The applicants have
challenged an aforesaid judgment and order
dated 06.06.2019 by filing Criminal Appeal
No. 221 of 2019 in the court of Sessions
Judge, Lucknow and the applicants have
been granted bail during pendency of the
Appeal.

6. During pendency of the Appeal, the
complainants Arvind Mohan Johari, Anand
Krishna Johari and Gyanendra Nath Johari
have entered into a settlement with Ajit
Singh, Udaijit Singh, Sona Singh, Rahul Jit
Singh, Kamini Singh and Carlton Hotel
Private Limited, stating that due to certain
disputes between the Singh group and
Johari group, the following litigations have
been initiated between the parties: -

1) Company Petition No. 76/2002
before the Company Law Board New
Delhi, titled 'Arvind Mohan Johari & Ors.
vs. Carlton Hotels Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.';

2)
Company
Petition
No.
11(ND)/111/2011 before the Company
Law Board, New Delhi, titled 'Arvind
Mohan Johari & Anr. vs. Carlton Hotels
PvtLtd. &Ors.';

3) Company Appeal No.1/2015 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench titled 'Carlton
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Arvind Mohan
Johari & Ors.';

4) Company Petition no. 354/2001
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
titled
'Registrar
of
Companies
vs.
Cyberspace Ltd. &Ors.';

5) Criminal Case no. 4603/2009
before Special Judicial Magistrate CBI,
Lucknow, titled 'State through CBI vs.
Udaijit Singh &Ors';

6) Criminal Appeal no. 220/2019 in
the Court of District & Session Judge,
Lucknow, titled 'Udaijit Singh vs. State of
UP through CBI';

7) Criminal Appeal no. 221/2019 in
the Court of Session Judge, Lucknow titled,
'Ajit Singh vs. State of UP through CBI'.

7. The settlement records that after
various rounds of discussion, both the
parties have settled their disputes in respect
of Carlton Hotel to maintain peace and
harmony and the terms of settlement have
been
recorded
in
the
aforesaid
memorandum
of
settlement.
It
is
specifically mentioned in the memorandum
of settlement that:-

"6. The Parties hereto had confirmed
and declared that all the disputes and
differences between them in respect of
Carlton Hotel stood settled and that none
of the parties has any further or other
dispute, difference, dues, claims, demands,
proceedings under arbitration or any
proceedings pending in any Court of law
including complaints / applications made to
statutory authority inter se the Parties of
any nature whatsoever against the other or
others of them in that regard and if there is
any, the same shall be unconditionally
withdrawn and would deem to have been
terminated between the parties."

8. On 03.09.2022, the applicant filed
an application before the Special Judge
C.B.I 5th Lucknow annexing therewith a
copy of the memorandum of settlement and
praying that the proceedings be terminated
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in terms of the compromise. However, no
order has been passed on the application by
the trial court and, therefore, the applicants
have
approached
this
Court
seeking
quashing of the criminal proceedings
against them in view of the compromise
entered into between the parties.

9. The offences involved in the
present
case
are
non-compoundable
offences and, therefore, the Trial Court
could not have compounded the same.
Moreover, as the applicants already stand
convicted by the trial Court and the parties
have arrived at a settlement during
pendency
of
an
appeal
against
the
conviction, there is no occasion for
compounding of the offences by the trial
Court.

10. Sri I. B. Singh, the learned Senior
Advocate representing the applicants, has
submitted that Section 320 (5) of the
Criminal Procedure Code provides that
"when the accused has been committed for
trial or when he has been convicted and an
appeal is pending, no composition for the
offence shall be allowed without the leave
of the Court to which he is committed, or,
as the case may be, before which the appeal
is to be heard." Relying on the aforesaid
provision, Sri. Singh, has submitted that
there is no absolute prohibition against
compounding of the offence even after
conviction of the accused persons by the
trial court. However, since some of the
sections for which the applicants have been
convicted, are non-compoundable, the
Appellate Court would not quash the
proceedings
on
the
basis
of
the
compromise.

11. The a law regarding quashing of
criminal
proceedings
involving
noncompoundable
offences
has
been
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in various pronouncements, which are
being referred hereinbelow.

12. In B. S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if for the purpose
of securing the ends of justice, quashing of
FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would
not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing.

13. In Nikhil Merchant versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another, (2008) 9 SCC 677, the CBI had
filed a charge-sheet against five accused
persons, including three accused are
officials of Andhra Bank, under Section
120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with
Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2)
read
with
Section
13(1)(d)
of
the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
allegations under the charge-sheet indicated
that the accused persons conspired with
each other in fraudulently diverting the
funds of Andhra Bank. Offences alleging
forgery were also included in the chargesheet. The Bank had filed a suit for
recovery of money, in which the parties
had entered into a compromise and the suit
was decreed accordingly. Clause 11 of the
compromise read as follows: -

"11. Agreed that save as aforesaid
neither party has any claim against the
other and parties do hereby withdraw all
the allegations and counter-allegations
made against each other."

14. Consequent upon the compromise
of the suit and having regard to the contents
of Clause 11 of the consent terms, the
appellant herein filed an application for
5 All. Ajit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
829
discharge from the criminal complaint, in
respect of which charge-sheet had been
filed by CBI, but the application was
rejected by the Trial Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"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 whereunder
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 hereinabove and keeping in mind
the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi
case2 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."

15. In Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court extensively discussed the
judgments on this point, including B. S.
Joshi and Nikhil Merchant (Supra) and held
that: -

"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.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption 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
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its
view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put
the 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 the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding.

62. In view of the above, it cannot be
said that B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and
Manoj Sharma were not correctly decided.
We answer the reference accordingly. Let
these matters be now listed before the
Bench(es) concerned."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of
Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the principles
in this regard as follows: -

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction
of the High Court to quash a first
information
report
or
a
criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint should
be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would
justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the
High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude
it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends
of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a
complaint or first information report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.
5 All. Ajit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
831

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases
which
have
an
overwhelming
or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

16.8.
Criminal
cases
involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8. and
16.9. above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of
the State have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

17. In the case of State of M. P. v.
Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law
in this regard as follows: -

"15.Considering the law on the point
and the other decisions of this Court on the
point, referred to hereinabove, it is
observed and held as under:

15.1.That the power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

15.2.Such power is not to be exercised
in those prosecutions which involved
heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on
society;

15.3.Similarly, such power is not to be
exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offender;

15.4.Offences under Section 307 IPC
and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc.
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts
of the body, nature of weapons used, etc.
However, such an exercise by the High
Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and
the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the
decision
of
this
Court
inNarinder
Singh[NarinderSinghv.State
of
Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54]
should be read harmoniously and to be
read as a whole and in the circumstances
stated hereinabove;

15.5 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide
Official
Corrigendum
No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019
dated
3-4-2019.]
.While exercising the power under Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings
in
respect
of
noncompoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impact
on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely,
whether
the
accused
was
absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant
to enter into a compromise, etc."

18. Per contra, Sri Shiv. P. Sukla, the
learned counsel for the respondent - C.B.I
has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in P. Dharamaraj Versus
Shanmugam and Others 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1186, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"44.Thus it is clear from the march of
law that the Court has to go slow even
while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482
Cr.PC
or
Article
226
of
the
Constitution in the matter of quashing of
criminal proceedings on the basis of a
settlement reached between the parties,
when the offences are capable of having an
impact not merely on the complainant and
the accused but also on others.

* * *

46.It is needless to point out that
corruption by a public servant is an offence
against the State and the Society at large.
The Court cannot deal with cases involving
abuse of official position and adoption of
corrupt practices, like suits for specific
performance, where the refund of the
money paid may also satisfy the agreement
holder. Therefore we hold that the High
Court was completely in error in quashing
the criminal complaint."

19. The applicants are not public
servants and, therefore, the law laid down
5 All. Ajit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
833
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.
Dharamaraj that (Supra) that corruption by
a public servant is an offence against the
State and the Society at large and when the
offences are capable of having an impact
not merely on the complainant and the
accused but also on others, the Court has to
go slow even while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the proceedings, is not applicable to the
facts of the present case.

20.

Had
the
offences
been
compoundable, there would be no bar
against the same being compounded by the
appellate court even after conviction of the
applicants in view of the provision
contained in Section 320 (5) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. However, in the
present case, the appellate Court cannot
compound the offences only because the
offences are non-compoundable.

21. Because of the compromise
between the parties, the possibility of
conviction being upheld in appeal is remote
and bleak and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would put the applicants to
great oppression and prejudice despite full
and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. The Trial Court cannot
compound non-compoundable offences,
but this Court can quash proceedings of
criminal case involving non-compoundable
offences. Similarly, as the appellate Court
could have compounded the offences even
after conviction, had the offences been
compoundable, applying the same analogy,
this Court can quash the proceedings
involving non-compoundable offences even
after conviction by the trial Court, where
the proceedings deserve to be quashed
keeping in view the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.

22. When we examine the facts of the
present case in the light of the above
referred law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, what we find is that the
offences involved in the present case arise
out of complaints made by private persons
alleging a wrongful deprivation of their
corporate and commercial rights in the
Company by certain acts of forgery etc.
committed by the applicant no. 3 for the
benefit of the applicants no. 1 and 2. The
complainants have already entered into a
comprehensive
settlement
with
the
applicants for maintaining peace and
harmony and the terms of settlement record
that all the disputes and differences
between them in respect of Carlton Hotel
stood settled and that none of the parties
has any further or other dispute, difference,
dues, claims, demands, proceedings under
arbitration or any proceedings pending in
any Court of law including complaints /
applications made to statutory authority
inter se the Parties of any nature
whatsoever against the other or others of
them in that regard and if there is any, the
same shall be unconditionally withdrawn
and would deem to have been terminated
between the parties. The disputes appear to
be inherently of a civil nature with an
overwhelmingly and predominately civil
flavour. The wrongs allege do not amount
to commission of offence against the
society at large.

23. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the conviction
order and the entire proceedings against the
applicants deserve to be quashed by this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code, keeping in
view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgments referred to
above.
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.

25. The order of conviction dated
06.06.2019, passed by learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow in
Case No.4603 of 2009, arising out of F.I.R.
registered
as
RC
No.01(S)/2006/CBI/SCB/LKO
dated
12.01.2006, under Sections 120-B, 420,
466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A I.P.C. and all the
subsequent proceedings from the aforesaid
judgment are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 30527 of 2021

Ravikant & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vinod Singh, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri Vibhu Rai,
Sri Ankit Shukla, Sri Anoop Trivedi(Sr.Advocate)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A. Sri Pandey, Balkrishna

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 147, 452, 354-B, 323, 504 & 506
- In the criminal proceeding arising out of
the FIR lodged on the application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C., IO submitted Final Report,
against which Protest petition was filed,
which
was
treated
as
complaint
-
Summon issued - Validity challenged -
Ground of delay of two moths in filing of
the application u/s 156(3) was taken -
Effect - Defence of delay was taken that
one family member of applicant, being in
police service, influenced the local police
authority to not to lodge FIR of opposite
party and when by the order of the court,
FIR was lodged, further influenced the IO
to submit the final report - Effect - Held,
an offence took place on the same date,
time and place for which both the parties
have initiated criminal proceedings. The
truth would appear only after appraisal of
the evidence. It does not appear that the
impugned criminal proceeding initiated on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 is an abuse
of process of Court. The grounds taken by
applicants are not sufficient to throw
away the case of opposite party no. 2.
(Para 17 and 19)

Application dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pepsi Food Ltd. & ors. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors.; (1998) 5 SCC 749

2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I.; (2015) 4 SCC
609

3. M/s G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust
Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.; AIR 2013 SC 1433

4. Lallan Kumar Singh Vs St. of Mah.; 2022
Livelaw (SC) 833

5. Krishna Lal Chawla & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; Manu/SC/0161/2021

6. Vineet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
Manu/SC/0351/2017

7. Sundar Babu & ors. Vs St. of T.N.; (2009) 14
SCC 244

8. Ahmad Ali Quraishi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.; (2020) 13 SCC 435

9. M.N. Ojha & ors. Vs A.K. Srivastava & anr.;
(2009) 9 SCC 682

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Has been moved by the accused-