Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JJ.
Anuj Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8510 of 2022
Decided on : 16-09-2022
Quashing of FIR - Settlement of Dispute - Sections 420, 409, 506 and 120B IPC - [420, 409, 506, 120B IPC] - The court discussed the inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report when the parties have settled their disputes, which are of a private nature and have no grave impact on society. The court emphasized that the time of courts and investigating agencies is precious and should not be wasted in futile proceedings where the chance of conviction is bleak.
Fact of the Case:
A first information report was lodged against the petitioner and others under Sections 420, 409, 506, and 120B IPC, alleging misappropriation of funds and causing substantial loss to the complainant company. Subsequently, a compromise was reached between the parties, and the petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled their dispute and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. It acknowledged the inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR when the parties have settled their disputes, emphasizing the need to prevent the abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice.
Issues: The issues involved the settlement of a private dispute between the parties, the quashing of the FIR under Sections 420, 409, 506, and 120B IPC, and the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that when parties have settled their disputes, which are of a private nature and have no grave impact on society, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report. It emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned First Information Report dated 18.5.2022 lodged against the petitioner under Sections 420, 409, 506, and 120B IPC, Police Station, Phase-II, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The preset writ petition has been filed for following prayers:
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. 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:
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's inherent jurisdiction to quash a first information report when the parties have settled their disputes, which are of a private natu....
Point of Law : The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise....
The court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The court may quash criminal proce....
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. allows for the quashing of FIRs when the parties have settled their disputes amicably, provided the offences do not involv....
The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the continuance of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law, em....
The voluntary nature of the compromise, absence of coercion, and the reformatory purpose of criminal jurisprudence justified the quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings based on a voluntary compromise, considering the impact on public peace, moral turpitude, and the pur....
The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
