Vikas Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 286 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 286 Chatt
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court

Vikas Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2022

                                 1

                                                             NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRMP No. 56 of 2022

     • Vikas Kumar Agrawal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged About 30
       Years, R/o Chetan Chowk, Pendra, P.S.- Pendra, District-
       Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ---- Petitioner

                              Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer,
        Police Station Pendra, District- Bilaspur (Now District-
        Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi), Chhattisgarh, District : Gaurela-
        Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Preetam Darkesh S/o Rohit Das Aged About 31 Years, R/o
        Village- Murmur, District- Bilaspur (Now District Gourela-
        Pendra-Marwahi) Chhattisgarh, District : Gaurela-Pendra-
        Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order On Board

18/01/2022

Proceeding through video conferencing.

Heard.

Admit.

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the

criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No. 32/2016, registered

at police station Pendra, District Bilaspur (now District Gourela-

Pendra-Marwahi) C.G., for the offence punishable under Section 384

of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act and also

praying for quashment of entire charge sheet, judgment dated

23.09.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pendra Road in

Criminal Case No. 270/2016 and also the proceeding of Additional

Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2021.

2. It is condended that both the parties have settled the dispute

and the statements of the parties have been recorded and they

have contended that they do not want to further continue with the

criminal case as they have entered into the compromise, therefore,

the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed. The parties

have filed a joint compromise application (Annexure-P/3) before

the trial Court under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in which the

statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded.

3. As per the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2, he has

taken loan from the petitioner and in lieu of which he has given a

cheque to the petitioner, which was returned by the concerned

bank and hence the petitioner has preferred a complaint under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent

No. 2 before the competent Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2

has lodged false and baseless FIR No. 32/2016 at P.S. Pendra

against the petitioner under Section 384 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of

Karja Act, in which after completion of investigation, the police has

filed the charge-sheet and learned trial Court has framed the

charges under the same Sections and the case was fixed for

prosecution witnesses, during the trial the prosecution has

examined as many as 8 witnesses before the trial Court. During the

trial, as the proceeding of Section 138 of NI Act was also pending

against the respondent No. 2, both the parties mutually agreed to

settle the entire dispute and hence jointly preferred compromise

application before the trial Court under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C, in

which the statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded.

Certified copy of compromise application and compromise

statements are collectively filed as Annexure-P/3. On the basis of

above mentioned compromise, the learned trial Court has acquitted

the petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of

Karja Act but convicted him under Section 384 of IPC vide judgment

dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-P/4). Thereafter, against the said

judgment, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Apeeal No. 14/2021

before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, under

Section 374 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/5 and P/6). On the other hand,

the trial Court had convicted the respondent No. 2 on the complaint

of petitioner filed under Section 138 of NI Act (Annexure-P/7). After

that respondent No. 2 has preferred an appeal, in which both the

parties mutually settled their dispute and Lok-Adalat has passed

the award on 14.09.2019 on the basis of compromise entered

between the parties (Annexure-P/8). Now the petitioner and

respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute and hence

prays for quashment of entire criminal proceedings pending against

the petitioner.

4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) Vol. 10 SCC 303,

has stated that the position that emerges from the above

discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in

quashing a criminal proceeding of FIR or complaint in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power to a

criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of

the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory

limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline

engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii)

to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power

to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be

exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute

would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no

category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such

power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and

gravity of the crime in question and has laid down the above

principles and held that:

"In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

5. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced

that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore, do

not affect public peace or tranquality and where it feels that

quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would

bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not

hesitate to quash them.

6. Thus, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, as also the law relating to the continuance of criminal

cases where the complainant and the accuse had settled their

differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and in

view of the statement made by the respondent No. 2, the FIR in

question warrants to be put to an end and the proceedings