Jaiprakash Ganwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 891 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                       NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                Cr.M.P No.287 of 2023
        1. Jaiprakash Ganwani S/o Late Dr. N. Ganwani, Aged About 48
           Years R/o Ekta Chowk, In Front Of Post Office, Bhilai -3, Tahsil
           Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
        2. Shrawan Jain S/o Nemichand Jain, Aged About 50 Years R/o
           Ward No. 14, Jain Mandir Road, Indira Para, Bhilai - 3, B.M.Y.
           Charoda, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh         ----Petitioners
                                          Versus
        1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
           Station, Purani Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
        2. Smt. Savita Parghaniha W/o Shri Dharmendra Parghaniha, Aged
           About 45 Years R/o Quarter No. 11/c, Street No. 37, Sector-1,
           Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh       ----Respondents

For Petitioners: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State: Shri Chitendra Singh, PL. For Respondent No.2: Shri Anil Tawadkar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 10.02.2023

1. This Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the

criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.368/2017 pending before

the JMFC, Bhilai-3, District Durg arsing out of FIR No.41/2017

registered at P.S Old Bhilai, District Durg for the offence under

Section 384/34 IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between

the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.2 has filed a

written complaint alleging that husband of Respondent No.2-

Dharmendra Parghaniha had taken loan of Rs.63,000/- from

Priya

Petitioner No.1 and Rs.35,000/- from Petitioner No.2 and repaid the

loan amount in excess. However, the Petitioners started harassing

Dhamendra Parganiha in the name of repayment of loan and also

threatened him, therefore, offence under Section 384/34 IPC and

under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Riniyon Ka Sanrakshan

Adhiniyam, 1937 (for short ' the Act of 1937') was registered and after

investigation, the charge sheet was filed. During pendency of the

proceedings, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement

and preferred an application for compounding the offence and also

submitted an agreement of compromise deed. Learned Magistrate,

vide order dated 18.01.2023, had rejected the application for

compounding the offence on the ground that the application was not

filed by the victim's husband Dharmendra Parghaniha. Thereafter,

Dharmendra Parghaniha had filed a fresh application for

compounding the offence and on the same day, the said application,

was allowed under Section 4 of the Act of 1937 but under Section

384/23 IPC, it was dismissed on the ground of being not

compoundable in nature. Hence this Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for both the parties submit that the parties

have arrived at an amicable settlement by their own free will and

without any undue influence, force or inducement and the trial Court

has also passed an order for compounding the offence under Section

4 of the Act of 1937 but due to some technicalities, disallowed the

said application under Section 384/34 IPC, therefore, pray to allow

Priya

the instant Petition.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel

for the parties, particularly considering that amicable settlement has

arrived at between the parties and there would be no purpose to

continue with the criminal prosecution, further considering the dictum

of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another in the

matter of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another

reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherein, it is well settled that the High

Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal

proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does

not limit or affect the powers under Sections 482 of the Code and in

catena of judgments, it has been held that under Section 482 Cr.P.C,

in such circumstances, the initiation of proceedings may be quashed

by the High Court, this Court directs that further criminal prosecution

pertaining to Criminal Case No.368/2017 pending before the JMFC,

Bhailai-3, District Durg arsing out of FIR No.41/2017 registered at P.S

Old Bhilai, District Durg for the offence under Section 384/34 IPC is

hereby quashed.

5. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the concerned Court for

necessary compliance and the parties are directed to apprise the

concerned Court also about the same.

6. Resultantly, the instant Petition is hereby allowed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya