Future Choice vs Karan Nagpal

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of criminal complaint titled 'Karan Nagpal Vs. M/s Future Choice' under Sections 405, 406, 420 & 506 RPC filed by the respondent against petitioner, pending before learned Sub Registrar Jammu; and quashing of order dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Sub Registrar Jammu by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, on the ground of compromise arrived at between petitioner and respondent.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 27.02.2019, this Court has directed Registrar Judicial to record the statements of the parties and their counsel in order to authenticate the compromise deed.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Registrar Judicial has recorded the statements of the parties and that of their counsel. The said statements are placed on record, which read as under:-

"Statement of Brajesh Kumar (petitioner), Age : 34 years; S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, R/o 10/1021, Vijay Nagar, By Pass, Gaziabad, U.P. on oath today i.e. 01.03.2019

Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 18.01.2019 on behalf of M/s Future Choice (Noida, U.P.) and have amicable settled all disputes and issues with respondent namely Karan Nagpal. I have handed over a demand draft bearing no.034701 of Axis Bank amounting Rs.315000/- on behalf of M/s Future Choice in the terms of the above said compromise deed. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I pray the Hon'ble Court to quash the complaint u/s 405,406, 420 & 506 RPC titled Karan Nagpal V/s M/s Future Choice pending before the Court of Learned Sub Registrar Jammu along with the proceedings initiated by the Learned Court of the Sub Registrar Jammu in the above mentioned complaint.

Statement of Karan Nagpal (respondent), Age: 30 years; S/o Sh.Anil Nagpal R/o 401, Shastri Nagar , Jammu on oath today i.e. 01.03.2019

Stated that I have entered into a compromise deed executed on 18.01.2019 and have amicable settled all disputes and issues with petitioner -M/s Future Choice through its authorized Signatory- Brajesh Kumar. I have received a demand draft bearing no.034701 of Axis Bank amounting Rs.315000/- from M/s Future Choice in the terms of the above said compromise deed. Now , I have no grievance / claim with petitioner and will not pursue / file any complaint against the petitioner regarding the same matter. In view of the afore said compromise deed, I have no objection in case the Hon'ble Court quashes the complaint u/s 405,406, 420 & 506 RPC titled Karan Nagpal V/s M/s Future Choice pending before the Court of Learned Sub Registrar Jammu along with the proceedings initiated by the Learned Court of the Sub Registrar Jammu in the above mentioned complaint.

Statement of Sh.Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for petitioner on oath today i.e. 01.03.2019

Stated that I do hereby identify the petitioner who has deposed his statement before Registrar Judicial in my presence which is true and correct to my knowledge.

Statement of Sh.Rajesh K.Thappa, Advocate for respondent on oath today i.e. 01.03.2019

Stated that I do hereby identify the respondent who has deposed his statement before Registrar Judicial in my presence which is true and correct to my knowledge."

From bare perusal of the statements placed on record, it is evident that parties have entered into a compromise whereby they have settled their differences.

Relevant extract of the compromise deed is reproduced as under:-

"That it has been agreed between the parties that party of 2nd part shall pay an amount of Rs.3.15 lacs (Rupees three lacs fifteen thousand only) and the said amount shall be paid through demand draft No.034701 of AXIS Bank dated 02.01.2019 to be paid in the name of M/s Northend Radical.

That the said demand draft bearing No.034701 of AXIS Bank issued by M/s Ambience Food and Beverage Co. on behalf of M/s Future Choice shall be given to the party of 1st part on the date fixed in the matter i.e. 19/1/2019 with proper receipt.

That after receipt of the Demand Draft amounting to Rs.3.15 lacs (Rupees three lacs fifteen thousand only) the party of 1st part undertakes to withdraw the said complaint by filing proper application/giving statement before the Court on the same day i.e. 19/1/2019.

That party of 1st part shall also undertake that he shall not launch any proceedings/complaint/civil suit or any other application against the party of 2nd part as well as against Ambience Food and Beverages Co. For which the complaint has been filed.

That there is nothing outstanding against each other with respect to the claim made by the part of 1st part in the complaint filed by him against the party of 2nd part before the Court of ld. Sub Registrar Jammu."

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, it is held as under:-

"48.The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.

Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, „nothing in this Code‟ which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

In different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorized, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court underSection 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided.

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.

55 B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675 Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677 Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1 and Shiji alias Pappu (2011) 10 SCC 705 do illustrate the principle that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi1, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji alias Pappu, this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."

Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, I am of considered opinion that future trial is mere wastage of time of courts. As the parties have compromised, there would be no chance of conviction of accused in the case. Offences for which criminal prosecution has been launched are not heinous one.

Consequently, this petition is allowed and criminal complaint titled 'Karan Nagpal Vs. M/s Future Choice' filed by the respondent under Sections 405, 406, 420 & 506 RPC pending before Sub Registrar Jammu, and order dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Sub Registrar Jammu, are quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.