# Yogendra Goswami v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.9361 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-goswami-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46572
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 -
Section
138
-
Compromise/settlement
between the parties-cheque handed over to
the counsel for opposite party by the counsel
for
the
Applicant-entire
proceedings
of
complaint case quashed-inherent power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.B.S. Joshi Vs St.of Har. & ors. 2003 (4) ACC 675

## Text

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remaining period and if any request on behalf of
accused-applicant is made by his counsel even
orally to the extent that he is ready to submit
sureties / bail bonds as per satisfaction of the court
seeking default bail, the learned trial court may not
refuse bail to the accused as the right of default
bail emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution
of India which guarantees right to life and personal
liberty. Such liberty guaranteed under chapter 3 of
the Constitution of India may not be circumvented,
ignored or violated by the learned trial court.

15. Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
is allowed.

16. The order dated 7.6.2021 passed by the
Special Judge, POCSO Act / Additional Sessions
Judge, Lucknow rejecting the bail application of
the applicant u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. is hereby
quashed.

17. The learned trial court is directed to
release the present applicant on default bail u/s
167(2) Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 669/2021, Crime No.
23/2021, u/s 342, 376D, 372, 506 IPC & Section
5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Mahanagar, District
Lucknow in the case 'The State vs. Upreta Kumar
Rasail & others, pending in the court of Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow on on his furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions which are being
imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i)
The
applicant
shall
file
an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when
the witnesses are present in court. In case of
default of this condition, it shall be open for the
trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and
pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel. In case of his
absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court
may proceed against him under Section 229-A of
the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his
presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings against
him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A
of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present,
in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed
for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge
and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence
of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to
treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against him in accordance with law.

18. Before parting with it is to mention that
useful assistance has been provided by Ms. Shama
Parveen, Law Clerk and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava,
Law Intern.
----------

(2021)11ILR A428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No.9361 of 2021

Yogendra Goswami ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri H.N. Singh(Sr.
Advocate), Sri Abhishek Dwivedi
11 All. Yogendra Goswami Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
429
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ronak Chaturvedi

Civil Law - Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 -
Section
138
-
Compromise/settlement
between the parties-cheque handed over to
the counsel for opposite party by the counsel
for
the
Applicant-entire
proceedings
of
complaint case quashed-inherent power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.B.S. Joshi Vs St.of Har. & ors. 2003 (4) ACC 675

2. Gian Ssingh Vs St.of Punj. 2012 (10) SCC 303

3. Dimpey Gujral & ors. Vs Union Territory Through
Administrator 2013 (11) SCC 697

4. Narendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors. 2014
(6) SCC 466

5. Yogendra Yadav & ors. Vs St.of Jharkhand 2014 (9)
SCC 653

6. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj.& anr,; reported in (2017)
9 SCC 641

7. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 S.C. 866,

8.St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426,

9. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192

10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283

11. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St.of Bihar, 2002 (44)
ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, learned
counsel
for
applicant
and
Shri
Ronak
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned
order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Additional
Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case
No.699 of 2020 (Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs.
Yogendra
Goswami),
under
Section
138
Negotiable Instrument Act P.S. Vrindavan
District Mathura.

3. Shri H.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel
for the applicant has handed over the cheque
amount of Rs.4,50,000.00 by way of bank draft
No.167559 dated 22.02.2021 re-validated on
28.06.2021 to Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 before this Court
today itself.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2
has received the draft of Rs.4,50,000/- on the
instruction of his client Manoj Kumar Sharma
and submits that his client is not interested to
pursue the case i.e. Complaint Case No.699 of
2020 (Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogendra
Goswami), under Section 138 Negotiable
Instrument Act P.S. Vrindavan District Mathura
pending in the Court of Additional Judicial
Magistrate,
Mathura,
and
therefore,
the
proceedings of the aforesaid case may be
quashed by this Court.

5. Considering the arguments as advanced
by learned counsel for the parties and the
statement given by learned counsel for opposite
party no.2, a draft of Rs.4,50,000/- is being
handed over to the learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 today by the learned counsel for the
applicant in Court and a photostat copy of the
same is being kept in the file of this case as well
as in the file of learned AGA.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that since
the parties have entered into compromise and the
cheque amount has been paid by way of bank
draft, therefore, no useful purpose would be
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case
go on further.

7. Learned counsel for the parties has drawn
the attention of this Court and placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support
of their case.

(i) B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana &
Others 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Ssingh Vs. State of Punjab
2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others Vs.
Union Territory Through Administrator 2013
(11) SCC 697.

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others Vs.
State of Punjab And Others 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others Vs.
State of Jharkhand 2014 (9) SCC 653.

8. Summarizing the ratio of all the above
cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641 and in paragraph no.16, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has summarized the broad principles
with regard to exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement
between the parties which emerges from precedent
of the subjects as follows:-

i. "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 recognizes and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court.

ii.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 noncompoundable.

iii. 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;

iv. 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;

v. 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;

vi. 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;
11 All. Yogendra Goswami Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
431

vii. 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 in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;

viii. Criminal cases involving offences
which
arises
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;

ix. 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

x. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix)
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."

9. The Apex Court has also laid down the
guidelines where the criminal proceedings could
be interfered and quashed in exercise of its
power by the High Court in the following cases:-
(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal,
1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs.
P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10)
2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

10. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex
Court has settled the legal position for quashing
of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to
be applied by the court is to whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie
establishes the offence and the chances of
ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing
criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule.
The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three
circumstances
under
which
the
inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect
an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure
the ends of justice. The power of High Court is
very wide but should be exercised very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice for
which the court alone exists.

11. With the assistance of the aforesaid
guidelines, keeping in view the nature and
gravity and the severity of the offence which are
more particularly is private dispute and
differences it is deem proper and meet to the
ends of justice. The proceeding of the
aforementioned case be quashed.

12. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
stands allowed. Keeping in view the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
referred
judgment
and
in
view
of
the
statement/compromise made by the applicants as
well as opposite party no.2 and the observation
made above, the entire proceedings of complaint
case no.699 of 2020 (Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs.
Yogendra Goswami), under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station
Vrindavan, District Mathura pending in the
Court
of
Additional
Judicial
Magistrate,
Mathura is hereby quashed.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The party shall file computer generated
copy of such order downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad or certified
copy issued from the Registry of the High Court,
Allahabad.

14. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and shall make
a declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)11ILR A432
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9961 of 2021

Jaikawar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Punya Sheel Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Excuse Act, 1944 - Section 72 - Application
filed
for
release
of
vehicle-rejectedprovision u/s 72 (1) to (4) of Excise Acthave the effect of denuding the Magistrate
of his power to pass any order u/s 47 of the
Code for release of any article seized under
offence
under
the
act-impugned
order
correct.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Virendra Gupta Vs St. of U.P, 2019 (108) ACC 438

2. Nand Vs St of U.P., 1997 (1) AWC 41
3. Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors, 2017 (5)
ADJ 351

4.Vikas Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & anr., (Application u/s
482 No. 33012 of 2019, decided on 22.1.2020)

5.Chandra Pal Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (Application u/s
482 No. 1325 of 2021, decided on 12.2.2021)

6. Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj. AIR 2003
SC 638

7. Vikki Vs St. of U.P., 2021 0 Supreme (All) 479

8.Ved Prakash Vs St. of U.P., 1982 19 ACC 183

9. Maru Ram Vs U.O.I. , (1981) 1 SCC 107

10. St. (U.O.I.) Vs Ram Sharan, (2003) 12 SCC 578

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned Additional Government Advocate-I
along with Ms. Rachna Tiwari, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for
State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1 has
been filed seeking to quash the order dated
08.09.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/F.T.C. Court No.1, Deoria in Criminal
Revision No. 21 of 2020 (Jaikawar vs. State of
U.P.) and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17,
Deoria in Misc. Application No. 37 of 2020,
arising out of Case Crime No. 924 of 2019,
under Sections 60/63 of Excise Act and Section
473 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria.

3. The facts as reflected from the records
of the case indicate that an application was filed
by the applicant herein before the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate seeking release of vehicle
bearing Registration No. H.R. 60-J-1553, Engine