Gokul Vendan v. State and Anr

The case originates from an FIR lodged by the complainant alleging that he had deposited a sum of rupees Ninety OneThousand Two Hundred in a mobile application named “Power Bank” after being told that the invested amount would be doubled within fifteen days. Upon discovering that the application was fraudulent and its ownership unverifiable, he reported the matter to the police.

4. During investigation, the bank account of the Applicant was found to have been used in certain transactions linked to the alleged scam. The Applicant asserts that he is a resident of Tamil Nadu, employed in a small video recording shop, and that he had no role in the creation or operation of the application. It is claimed that a co-accused, namely Muruganandam, had misused the Applicant’s account without his knowledge. The Applicant has remained in custody and is stated to have no criminal antecedents.

5. Subsequently, with the intervention of family members and well-wishers, the Applicant and Respondent No. 2 entered into an amicable settlement. The Applicant has compensated complainant for the amount allegedly deposited in the fraudulent scheme. A joint compromise has been filed along with the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 affirming that he no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings and has no objection if the charge sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings are quashed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any material to justify the implication of the Applicant in the alleged offences. It was contended that the essential ingredients of cheating or dishonest Criminal Misc. Application No. 314 of 2022, Gokul Vendan Vs State and Anr- 2 Ashish Naithani J. inducement are not satisfied inasmuch as the Applicant had neither created the application nor induced the complainant to invest any amount. It was urged that the prosecution story itself suggests that the complainant was introduced to the application by his friends and had independently chosen to invest. No amount was deposited in the Applicant’s account by the complainant. The Applicant’s bank account was allegedly misused by the co accused, for which the Applicant had no knowledge or involvement.

7. Learned Counsel further submitted that the provisions of Sections 3, 21 and 4, 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act are not attracted as the Applicant is not a deposit taker, nor has he made any representation or promise to induce any person to deposit money. In any event, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, and Respondent No. 2 has categorically stated in his affidavit that he does not wish to prosecute the Applicant.

8. It was argued that compelling the Applicant to face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, particularly when the complainant himself does not wish to pursue the matter.

9. Learned State Counsel opposed the prayer but fairly submitted that the complainant has indeed entered into a compromise, and the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 affirming the settlement is on record.

10. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. Criminal Misc. Application No. 314 of 2022, Gokul Vendan Vs State and Anr- 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. It is evident that the dispute between the Applicant and the complainant is primarily financial in nature, arising out of a transaction linked to an online application. The complainant has unequivocally stated that he has no objection to the quashing of proceedings and does not wish to pursue the matter. The affidavit of Respondent No. 2 reflects a voluntary and genuine settlement.

12. This High court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, may quash criminal proceedings even for offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, if the dispute is private in nature and continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility. The guiding principle is whether the ends of justice would justify such course and whether the possibility of conviction is remote in view of the settlement.

13. In the present case, the complainant has been duly compensated and has withdrawn all allegations against the Applicant. The nature of the offence, though falling under penal provisions, is founded not on physical harm or public interest but on alleged financial inducement. When the complainant himself does not support the prosecution and the dispute has been amicably resolved, there remains no useful purpose in continuing criminal proceedings. The Court must prevent abuse of the judicial process and secure the ends of justice, both of which require acceptance of the compromise in the present matter.

14. This Court is conscious that offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and the Information Technology Act have wider societal implications. However, the material on record does not indicate that the Applicant was the originator or Criminal Misc. Application No. 314 of 2022, Gokul Vendan Vs State and Anr- 4 Ashish Naithani J. beneficiary of the alleged scheme, nor that the complainant’s deposit passed to him. The prosecution case against the Applicant is weak and substantially diluted by the settlement. In these circumstances, the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would cause undue hardship to the Applicant without serving any public interest. ORDER In view of the discussion above, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. Charge Sheet No. 6A of 2021 dated 23 September 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2021, Police Station Cyber, Dehradun, under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3, 21 and 4, 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, along with the cognizance order dated 25 September 2021 passed by the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, and the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial BUDS Act No. 1 of 2021, State v. Ram Ujagar and others, are hereby quashed. The compromise between the parties is accepted. No further proceedings shall continue against the Applicant in the aforesaid matter. The application stands allowed accordingly. (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 314 of 2022, Gokul Vendan Vs State and Anr- 5 Ashish Naithani J.