THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1982 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking
quash of F.I.R. in Crime No.279/2017 of Arilova Police Station,
Visakhapatnam District, in so far as petitioner/A5 is concerned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that basing on the
complaint dated 19.9.2017, the Arilova police, Visakhapatnam
District have registered a case in Crime No.279/2017 under
Section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC against the petitioner/A5 and some
others. Learned counsel contended that without going into the
merits of the case, subsequently the petitioner had settled the
entire amount with the 2nd respondent under one time settlement
(OTS) scheme. The said fact was also not disputed by the counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent.
4. Further learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment reported in between Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Ors1 wherein it is recited that:
Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of Court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, 1 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 981 2 it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties.
In view of the discussion we made in the preceding paragraphs, in our opinion, it would be proper to keep the said point of law open. However, in the given facts, we dismiss this appeal.
In another judgment reported in between C.B.I., New Delhi vs. B.B.Agarwal and Ors.2 wherein it is recited that:
The High Court was of the view that on resettlement of accounts, the parties obtained the consent decree from DRT and paid the entire sum, therefore, there is no live issue, which now survives. The High Court then examined the question as to whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to continue on its merits. After examining this issue with reference to charges and documents, the High Court held that no criminality issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties.
We are also of the view that there arises no occasion to prosecute the respondents as was rightly held by the High Court while quashing the criminal case against the respondents.
By following the above two judgments and also the orders by this Court in Crl.Petition No.277 of 2019 and batch in quashing the criminal proceedings, learned counsel pray to quash the crime registered against the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the criminal petition is allowed and the F.I.R.No.279/2017 of Arilova police station, Visakhapatnam District is quashed against the petitioner only.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 30.4.2022 RD 2 2019(2) ALT (Crl.) 333(A.P) 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.1982 OF 2021 Dated 30.4.2022 RD