2019:UHC:2030 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 21st March, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 280 of 2019 Jitendra Kumar alias Dhiraj …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 531 of 2019 Satish Kumar and Others …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. There is a delay of 215 days’ in filing the restoration application, which is not opposed by learned counsel for the State. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 243 of 2021) is allowed. 2. In the restoration application, cause shown is sufficient to allow the application. The restoration application (IA No. 242 of 2021) is also allowed. Order dated 15.03.2019 and 29.09.2020 are recalled and the criminal misc. application is restored to its original 1 2019:UHC:2030 number. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, Jitendra Kumar @ Dhiraj and Satish Kumar @ Abhimanyu Kumar, seeking quashing of Case Crime No. 0345 of 2018 and Criminal Case No. 5849 of 2018, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with all consequential proceedings pending before the Learned First Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. Heard Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 5. The case pertains to allegations that the applicants, along with co-accused persons, fraudulently misrepresented their ability to secure an MBBS admission for the complainant's daughter at Shri Guru Ram Rai Medical College, Dehradun, and in doing so, received ₹16,00,000/- from the complainant, Vikash Goyal. However, the complainant's daughter was never admitted to the college, leading to the registration of the FIR and subsequent legal proceedings against the applicants and others. 6. During the pendency of the trial, the applicants and the complainant reached an amicable settlement in January 2019. As part of the settlement, the applicants returned ₹10,00,000/- to the complainant through demand drafts, whose details have been placed on record. The complainant has filed an affidavit acknowledging receipt of the amount and expressing no further grievance against the applicants. 2 2019:UHC:2030 7. In view of this settlement, an earlier Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482 No. 145 of 2019) was filed, seeking quashing of the case. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 25.01.2019, disposed of the application and directed the trial court to take note of the settlement and proceed accordingly. However, despite the settlement, the case continued to remain pending, leading to further legal complications. 8. On 08.10.2024, a recovery warrant was issued against Jitendra Kumar in compliance with earlier trial court orders, despite the existence of the settlement. This has led to an urgency in seeking judicial relief to prevent unnecessary hardship to the applicants. 9. The court acknowledges the arguments presented by both parties. Perused the records. 10. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the entire dispute arose out of a financial transaction, which was not a case of criminal intent but a misunderstanding regarding the admission process. It was further submitted that the applicants didn't gain, as the full and final settlement amount was returned to the complainant. The applicants also emphasized that no further claims or complaints have been made by the complainant in the years following the settlement, reinforcing that the dispute has been effectively resolved. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held that in disputes primarily of civil nature involving financial transactions, the Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when 3 2019:UHC:2030 the parties have settled the matter amicably. 11. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that the charges under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC are serious in nature and involve elements of forgery. However, he acknowledged that in cases where the complainant and the accused have reached a legitimate settlement and no public interest is involved, the court has discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. This position finds support in the decision in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, where the Apex Court held that if the offence is not heinous and does not affect public interest, and the parties have genuinely resolved their dispute, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings. 12. The complainant’s counsel submitted that his client has no objections to the quashing of the case and confirmed that all financial transactions have been settled amicably. He further argued that forcing the accused to undergo trial in a matter that has already been resolved would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Reference may also be made to B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings in a matrimonial dispute following a compromise to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. 13. It is well-settled law that in cases where the offense is private in nature and the parties have reached a bona fide settlement, the court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings to prevent 4 2019:UHC:2030 abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently ruled that in cases of financial disputes, where the aggrieved party has been compensated and has no further grievance, the continuance of prosecution serves no purpose. The decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 further reiterates that in cases not involving heinous crimes or offences against the society at large, the inherent powers of the High Court can be rightly invoked for quashing. 14. Considering the nature of the allegations, the amicable settlement between the parties, the refund of money, and the affidavit of the complainant stating that he does not wish to pursue the matter further, it would be unjust and unnecessary to continue with the criminal proceedings. The continuation of the trial would only result in undue hardship to the applicants, with no corresponding benefit to the complainant. 15. In the present matter, the court has reviewed all relevant facts, previous orders, and legal precedents to determine the appropriateness of quashing the proceedings. The original FIR, charge sheet, settlement agreements, and court orders have been examined, and it is clear that the case has been amicably resolved between the parties. The trial court was previously directed to take note of the settlement, yet proceedings continued, leading to unnecessary delays and hardships for the applicants. Further, the complainant has not pursued any further legal claims, affirming that the issue has been settled in totality. In 5 2019:UHC:2030 Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, the Apex Court emphasized that continuance of criminal proceedings after a full and final settlement between parties would be counterproductive to the interests of justice. 16. The applicants have demonstrated that the financial dispute was resolved, while the State has recognised that no larger public interest is involved in the matter. Given that the complainant has no objection and has filed an affidavit confirming settlement, there exists no compelling reason to allow the case to proceed further. 17. In light of the above findings and settled legal principles, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. The entire criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 0345 of 2018 and Criminal Case No. 5849 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of IPC, pending before the Learned First Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed against Jitendra Kumar @ Dhiraj and Satish Kumar @ Abhimanyu Kumar. 19. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 21.03.2025 SB 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by 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 Date: 2025.04.09 10:13:01 +05'30'