Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 677 of 2022
1. Prakash Kumar Agrawal S/o Jagdish Aged About 45 Years
2. Prakash Agrawal S/o Shankar Agrawal Aged About 44 Years
3. Navin Agrawal S/o Shankar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years
all R/o Adarshnagar, Sitapur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sitapur, District
Surguja Chhattisgarh.
2. Jharku Das S/o Baldas Aged About 50 Years R/o Jhulsitikar
Sontarai, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioners : Shri Bharat Sharma, Adv.
For respondent No. 1 : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Adv.
For respondent No. 2 : Shri K. Rohan, Adv.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
22-9-2022
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C.') praying
for quashing of proceeding of Complaint Case No. 461/2019
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur Distt.
Sarguja and the order dated 15-2-2022 passed by 1st Upper
Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Cr. Revision No. 75/2019.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was filed
by the respondent No. 2 alleging inter alia that the land bearing
Khasra No. 1632 area 0.405 acre was recorded in the name of his
mother Laxmania and the petitioner No. 1 by affixing photograph
of third person and by putting false signature of Laxamania got
executed sale deed in their favour. The respondent No. 2 claiming
himself to be adopted son of Laxmania challenged aforesaid
transaction by filing complaint case which was registered as
Complaint Case 461/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sitapur vide order dated 23-10-2019. The revision petition bearing
Cr. Revision No. 75/2019 filed by the petitioners against the order of
registration of complaint case was dismissed by the 1st Upper
Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, hence the petitioners
have filed instant petition challenging the aforesaid order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the
offences under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of
IPC, offence under Section 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the
IPC are non-compoundable, however both the parties have
settled their dispute. They have also deposed regarding their
settlement before the Addl. Registrar (J). Therefore, the
complaint case may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Learned State counsel submits that they have no objection
in compromise of the matter between the parties.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. Pursuant to order dated 16-8-2022 of this Court, statements
of the petitioners and respondents No. 2 have been recorded before
the Addl. Registrar (Judl.), in which they have stated that the matter
has been settled between them amicably. The respondent No. 2
has also deposed that due to settlement arrived at between them,
he does not want any action in the Complaint Case No. 461/2019
pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, Distt.
Sarguja against the petitioners. He has also deposed that he has
voluntarily made settlement and the same has been executed
without fear, pressure, or temptation.
9. In case of Gian Singh [(2012) 10 SCC 303] , the larger
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme court considered the relevant
provisions of the Code and its judgments and concluded as
under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) :
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the
power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given 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
FIR 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. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity,
etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. 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 the criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of M.P. -v-
Laxmi Narayan and ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688], and K. Srinivas
Rao -v- D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] has dealt with the matter
and has expressed the need of allowing the compromise between
the parties even in non-compoundable offences, however,
considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
11. In the instant case, though offence under Section 465, 467,
468, 471, 120B of IPC are non-compoundable, but considering that
it is a case of commercial dispute between the parties, these
offences can be quashed with the leave of this Court.
12. In view of above, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and nature of offence, the fact that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute between them, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is sufficient material before this Court
to form an opinion to quash the complaint case in question.
13. Consequently, Complaint Case No. 461/2019 pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur against the petitioners,
deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order
dated 23-10-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur
directing registration of offence against the petitioners and the order
dated 15-2-2022 passed by 1st Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikapur
in Cr. Revision No. 75/2019 are also quashed.
14. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(NK Chandravanshi)
Judge
Pathak/-
