St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Wit h

Heard Mr. Shakt i Singh, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Pram od Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e and perused t he record.

5. The case pert ains t o allegat ions t hat t he applicant s, along wit h co- accused persons, fraudulent ly m isrepresent ed t heir abilit y t o secure an MBBS adm ission for t he com plainant 's daught er at Shri Guru Ram Rai Medical College, Dehradun, and in doing so, received ₹16,00,000/- from t he com plainant , Vikash Goyal. However, t he com plainant 's daught er was never adm it t ed t o t he college, leading t o t he regist rat ion of t he FI R and subsequent legal proceedings against t he applicant s and ot hers.

6. During t he pendency of t he t rial, t he applicant s and t he com plainant reached an am icable set t lem ent in January 2019. As part of t he set t lem ent , applicants returned ₹10,00,000/- t o t he com plainant t hrough dem and draft s, whose det ails have been placed on record. The com plainant has filed an affidavit acknowledging receipt of t he am ount and expressing no furt her grievance against t he applicant s. 2

7. I n view of t his set t lem ent , an earlier Crim inal Miscellaneous Applicat ion ( C- 482 No. 145 of 2019) was filed, seeking quashing of t he case. The Hon'ble High Court , vide order dat ed 25.01.2019, disposed of t he applicat ion and direct ed t he t rial court t o t ake not e of t he set t lem ent and proceed accordingly. However, despit e t he set t lem ent , t he case cont inued t o rem ain pending, leading t o furt her legal com plicat ions.

8. On 08.10.2024, a recovery warrant was issued against Jit endra Kum ar in com pliance wit h earlier t rial court orders, despit e t he exist ence of t he set t lem ent . This has led t o an urgency in seeking j udicial relief t o prevent unnecessary hardship t o t he applicant s.

9. The court acknowledges t he argum ent s present ed by bot h part ies. Perused t he records.

10. The learned counsel t he applicant s argued t hat t he ent ire disput e arose out of a financial t ransact ion, which was not a case of crim inal int ent but a m isunderst anding regarding t he adm ission process. I t was furt her subm it t ed t hat t he applicant s didn't gain, as t he full and final set t lem ent am ount was ret urned t o t he com plainant . The applicant s also em phasized t hat no furt her claim s or com plaint s have been m ade by t he com plainant in t he years following t he set t lem ent , reinforcing t hat t he disput e has been effect ively resolved. Reliance has been placed on t he decision of t he Hon'ble Suprem e Court in Gian Singh v. St at e of Punj ab, ( 2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held t hat in disput es prim arily of civil nat ure involving financial t ransact ions, t he Court can exercise it s inherent power under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. t o quash proceedings when 3 t he part ies have set t led t he m at t er am icably.

11. The learned Addit ional Governm ent Advocat e appearing for t he St at e cont ended t hat t he charges under Sect ions 467, 468, and 471 I PC are serious in nat ure and involve elem ent s of forgery. However, he acknowledged t hat in cases where t he com plainant and t he accused have reached a legit im at e set t lem ent and no public int erest is involved, t he court has discret ion under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. t o quash proceedings. This posit ion finds support in t he decision in Narinder Singh v. St at e of Punj ab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, where t he Apex Court held t hat if t he offence is not heinous and does not affect public int erest , and t he part ies have genuinely resolved t heir disput e, t he High Court can quash t he crim inal proceedings.

12. The com plainant ’s counsel subm it t ed t hat his client has no obj ect ions t o t he quashing of t he case and confirm ed t hat all financial t ransact ions have been set t led am icably. He furt her argued t hat forcing t he accused t o undergo t rial in a m at t er t hat has already been resolved would serve no purpose and would am ount t o an abuse of t he process of law. Reference m ay also be m ade t o B.S. Joshi v. St at e of Haryana, ( 2003) 4 SCC 675, where t he Suprem e Court quashed proceedings in a m at rim onial disput e following a com prom ise t o prevent abuse of process and t o secure t he ends of j ust ice.

13. I t is well- set t led law t hat in cases where t he offense is privat e in nat ure and t he part ies have reached a bona fide set t lem ent , t he court , in t he exercise of it s inherent powers under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., m ay quash crim inal proceedings t o prevent 4 abuse of t he process of law and t o secure t he ends of j ust ice. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court and various High Court s have consist ent ly ruled t hat in cases of financial disput es, where t he aggrieved part y has been com pensat ed and has no furt her grievance, t he cont inuance of prosecut ion serves no purpose. The decision in St at e of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxm i Narayan, ( 2019) 5 SCC 688 furt her reit erat es t hat in cases not involving heinous crim es or offences against t he societ y at large, t he inherent powers of t he High Court can be right ly invoked for quashing.

14. Considering t he nat ure of t he allegat ions, t he am icable set t lem ent bet ween t he part ies, t he refund of m oney, and t he affidavit of t he com plainant st at ing t hat he does not wish t o pursue t he m at t er furt her, it would be unj ust and unnecessary t o cont inue wit h t he crim inal proceedings. The cont inuat ion of t he t rial would only result in undue hardship t o t he applicant s, wit h no corresponding benefit t o t he com plainant .

15. I n t he present m at t er, t he court has reviewed all relevant fact s, previous orders, and legal precedent s t o det erm ine t he appropriat eness of quashing t he proceedings. The original FI R, charge sheet , set t lem ent agreem ent s, and court orders have been exam ined, and it is clear t hat t he case has been am icably resolved bet ween t he part ies. The t rial court was previously direct ed t o t ake not e of t he set t lem ent , yet proceedings cont inued, leading t o unnecessary delays and hardships for t he applicant s. Furt her, t he com plainant has not pursued any furt her legal claim s, affirm ing t hat t he issue has been set t led in t ot alit y. I n 5 Yogendra Yadav v. St at e of Jharkhand, ( 2014) 9 SCC 653, t he Apex Court em phasized t hat cont inuance of crim inal proceedings aft er a full and final set t lem ent bet ween part ies would be count erproduct ive t o t he int erest s of j ust ice.

16. The applicant s have dem onst rat ed t hat t he financial disput e was resolved, while t he St at e has recognised t hat no larger public int erest is involved in t he m at t er. Given t hat t he com plainant has no obj ect ion and has filed an affidavit confirm ing set t lem ent , t here exist s no com pelling reason t o allow t he case t o proceed furt her.

17. I n light of t he above findings and set t led legal principles, t his Court is of t he considered view t hat t his is a fit case for quashing of proceedings under Sect ion 482 Cr.P.C.

18. The ent ire crim inal proceedings in Case Crim e No. 0345 of 2018 and Crim inal Case No. 5849 of 2018, under Sect ions 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of I PC, pending before t he Learned First Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Dehradun, are hereby quashed against Jit endra Kum ar @ Dhiraj and Sat ish Kum ar @ Abhim anyu Kum ar.

19. All pending applicat ions, if any, st and disposed of accordingly. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 21.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6