State v. Abhishek Tandon and another

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The present application has been filed for the following main reliefs:- "For the facts reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside summoning order dated 22-07-2018 passed by the Learned A.C.J.M., C.B.I. (A.P), Lucknow, by which the petitioners has been summoned under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow in Case No. 46839 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 135 of 2017 (State Versus Abhishek Tandon and another). It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet no. 01/2018, submitted in case crime no. 135 of 2017 under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow filed by the investigation officer against the petitioners." Vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in this application, this Court referred the matter to the concerned court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 23.02.2024, referred, is extracted hereunder:- "1. Heard Sri Siddhant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Bhupendra Pratapsingh who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of O.P. No.2 and the same is taken on record.

2. By means of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside/quashing the summoning order dated 22.7.2018 passed by the learned ACJM, CBI (AP, Lucknow whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, PS Gomti nagar, district Lucknow in Case No.46839 of 2018 arising out of case crime No.135 of 2017 (State. Vs. Abhishek Tandon and another with further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the private O.P. No.2 have stated that the petitioners and private O.P. No.2. have amicably compromised their dispute on 06.1.2024. The compromise taken place between the parties has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the petition.

4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court concerned. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that since the proceedings of the aforesaid case is now pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow, therefore, the petitioners and O.P. No.2 may be permitted to appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow for verification of their compromise.

6. Accordingly, for the purpose of verification of the compromise, petitioners and opposite party no.2 shall appear before learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow on 04.03.2024 alongwith original compromise deed and the learned court below shall proceed to verify the compromise deed. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court below and the same shall be sent to this Court by the next date of listing. The compromise will be made part of the record. The court below in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise.

7. List the matter before this Court on 19.03.2024 showing in the cause list the name of Sri Bhupendra Pratap Singh as counsel for O.P. No.2.

8. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be compelled to face the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid case.

9. Office is directed to return the original compromise to the counsel for the petitioners within three working days from today and the photostat copy of the same will be placed on record." It appears from the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.01.2025) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 135 of 2017, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arun/-

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The present application has been filed for the following main reliefs:- "For the facts reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside summoning order dated 22-07-2018 passed by the Learned A.C.J.M., C.B.I. (A.P), Lucknow, by which the petitioners has been summoned under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station-Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow in Case No. 46839 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 135 of 2017 (State Versus Abhishek Tandon and another). It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet no. 01/2018, submitted in case crime no. 135 of 2017 under sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow filed by the investigation officer against the petitioners." Vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in this application, this Court referred the matter to the concerned court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The order dated 23.02.2024, referred, is extracted hereunder:- "1. Heard Sri Siddhant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Bhupendra Pratapsingh who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of O.P. No.2 and the same is taken on record.

2. By means of the present petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside/quashing the summoning order dated 22.7.2018 passed by the learned ACJM, CBI (AP, Lucknow whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, PS Gomti nagar, district Lucknow in Case No.46839 of 2018 arising out of case crime No.135 of 2017 (State. Vs. Abhishek Tandon and another with further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the private O.P. No.2 have stated that the petitioners and private O.P. No.2. have amicably compromised their dispute on 06.1.2024. The compromise taken place between the parties has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the petition.

4. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court concerned. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that since the proceedings of the aforesaid case is now pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow, therefore, the petitioners and O.P. No.2 may be permitted to appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow for verification of their compromise.

6. Accordingly, for the purpose of verification of the compromise, petitioners and opposite party no.2 shall appear before learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.50, Lucknow on 04.03.2024 alongwith original compromise deed and the learned court below shall proceed to verify the compromise deed. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court below and the same shall be sent to this Court by the next date of listing. The compromise will be made part of the record. The court below in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise.

7. List the matter before this Court on 19.03.2024 showing in the cause list the name of Sri Bhupendra Pratap Singh as counsel for O.P. No.2.

8. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be compelled to face the criminal proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid case.

9. Office is directed to return the original compromise to the counsel for the petitioners within three working days from today and the photostat copy of the same will be placed on record." It appears from the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.01.2025) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 135 of 2017, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arun/-