Chattisgarh High Court
Venkateshwaralu Karnati vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 405 of 2024
Venkateshwaralu Karnati S/o Shri K Ramnayya Aged About 49 Years
Proprietor, Harshini Trading Company, Address - S.Y. No. 78/2, 78/3, 78/4,
Backside Portion, Vaidhampeth Village, Anantpuram, Anantpur-3.Shahar
(Andhra Pradesh) (Name of the petitioenr spelling is correct)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Shri Udit Pirmani S/o Shri Sachin Pirmani Aged About 25 Years, Proprietor,
Shri Laxmi Steel And Tube, R/o Shop No. 2, Fist Floor, Panjwani Gali, Jhulelal
Chowk, Naharpara, P.S. - Ganj, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL
For Respondent-2 : Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02.07.2024
Heard Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for
respondent-1/State, and Shri Ravi Bhagat learned Advocate for respondent-2.
1. This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section
482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR in Crime No.142 of 2023, registered at the
Police Station- Ganj, district-Raipur, for the offence under Sections 420, 409,
and 34 of the IPC with respect to only the petitioner, on the ground of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
Crmp 405 of 2024
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is Proprietor of Harshini Trading
Company, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh, which involved in the business of Steel
pipes. Respondent-2 is the Proprietor of Shri Laxmi Steel and Tube, who also
involved in the business of Steel pipes. There were business transactions in
between the petitioner and respondent-2. Due to some misunderstanding,
some amount was accumulated outstanding, which comes to the tune of
Rs.30,78,318/-. Then, dispute arose between the parties on payment of
outstanding amount, and respondent-2 lodged FIR No.142 of 2023 at PS-Ganj,
District- Raipur under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the IPC against the
petitioner and one Ajamal Singh, and Police started investigation. The said FIR
is under challenge in the present petition.
3. During pendency of investigation, petitioner and respondent-2 have
settled their dispute and entered into a compromise by executing a deed of
compromise on 23.05.2023, and its copy is filed in this petition as Annexure
P2. Relevant conditions of compromise deed are reiterated herein under for
ready reference:
01- ;g fd] mHk;i{kks ds uke] ,oa irs ok.kr vU; tkudkjh mijkDrkuqlkj lR; ,oa lgh gS] ftldh
iqf"V mHk;i{kks }kjk le>kSrus kes ij gLrk{kj dj dh tk jgh gSA
02- ;g fd] mHk;i{kks ds e/; vkilh lgefr ls ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] fd f}rh;i{k }kjk le>kSrs
ds vuqlkj izFkei{k dks fn;s tkus okys 30]78]318&¼rhl yk[k vBRrj gtkj rhu lkS vBkjg :i;s½ ds
Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa vkilh lgefr ls vc dqy 21]30]000@&¼bDdhl yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s½ dh le>kSrk
jkf'k vnk dh tkosxhA mijksDr laca/k esa f}rh;i{k }kjk izFkei{k dks bl le>kSrkukes ds fu"iknu ds le;
5]00]000@&¼ikap yk[k :i;s½ vkj-Vh-th-,l- ds ek/;e ls vnk fd;s x;s gS]a ftldk fjQjsl
a vkbZ-Mh-
5119039494 gS rFkk 'ks"k jkf'k ds Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa f}rh;i{k }kjk mlds iatkc us'kuy cSd
a ] 'kk[kk&,e-th-
jksM] fldUnjkckn fLFkr cSad [kkrs ds iksLViSM psd dze'k% ¼1½ dzekad&502694 fnukad 25@07@2023 dherh
3]30]000@& ¼v{kjh rhu yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s½ ¼2½ Øekad&502695 fnukad 25@08@2023 dherh
3]30]000@& ¼v{kjh rhu yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s½ ¼3½ Øekad 50]26]96 fnukad 20@09@2023 dherh
Crmp 405 of 2024
3]33]000@& ¼v{kjh rhu yk[k rSrhl gtkj :i;s½ ¼4½ Øekad 50]26]98 fnukad 2@11@2023 6]57]000@&
¼v{kjh N% yk[k larkou gtkj :i;s½ izFkei{k dks Hkqxrku gsrq bl le>kSrus kes ds fu"iknu ds le; iznRr
fd;s tk jgs gSAa bl izdkj izFke i{k] f}rh;i{k ls izkIr fd;s x;s mijksDr iksLVMsVsM psdksa dks psdksa esa
of.kZr frfFk esa vius cSad [kkrs esa Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr dj Hkqxrku izkIr dj ldsxkA mijksDr iksLVsMsVsM psd
ds Hkqxrku dh leLr ftEesnkjh f}rh;i{k dh gksxhA bl rjg mHk;i{kksa ds e/; r; dh x;h mijksDr
le>kSrk jkf'k 21]30]000@& ¼bDdhl yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s½ ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ jkf'k ysuk&nsuk 'ks"k
ugha gSaA
03- ;g fd] pqafd mHk;i{kks ds e/; vkilh le>kSrkukek gks x;k gSA bl dkj.k vc mHk;i{kksa ds e/;
vkilh legfr ls fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] fd f}fr;i{k }kjk mlds fo:) Fkkuk&xat] jk;iqj N-x- dh iqfyl
esa iathc) vijk/k Øekad 142@23 varxZr kkjk&409]420]34] Hkk-n-fo- ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds
le{k tekur ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ij izFkei{k }kjk mijksDr tekur vkosnu i= ij vukifRr izLrqr dh
tkosxhA blh izdkj f}rh;i{k }kjk izFkei{k dks bl le>kSrus kes ds fu"iknu ds le; iznku fd;s x;s
iksLVMsVsM psdks dk Hkqxrku izFkei{k dks izkIr gksus ds i'pkr izFkei{k }kjk f}rh;i{k ds fo:) Fkkuk&xat]
jk;iqj N-x- dh iqfyl es iathc) izdj.k dks jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij lekIr djkus ds lac/a k esa ekuuh;
fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k /kkjk&320¼2½] 320¼8½ n-iz-la- vFkok vko';drkuqlkj Nrrhlx<+ mPp U;k;ky;
fcykliqj ds le{k /kkjk 482 n- iz- la- ds vkosnu i= dh izLrqfr dh tkosxhA ftlls fd f}rh;i{k dh
mijksDr izdj.k esa nks"keqfDr gks ldsA"
4. During pendency of the present petition, petitioner, as well as
respondent-2 were directed to remain present before the learned Additional
Registrar of this Court for recording of their statements, vide order dated
20.02.2024, and in compliance of the order, they appeared before the learned
Additional Registrar (J) of this court and recorded their statements in support of
compromise deed, arrived at between the parties. They verified the terms and
conditions of the compromise, complainant admitted the payment of
outstanding amount against the present petitioner, and stated that he does not
want to prosecute his complaint against the petitioner herein, any further.
5. Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of BS Joshi and others Vs State
of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as under:
Crmp 405 of 2024
"If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.
Thus, the High Court on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit
or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
6. Further, in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab
reported in (2014) 6, SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme court has held that :
"29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.
29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases."
7. Further, in the matter of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Honble Supreme court has held:
"57. 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 F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
Crmp 405 of 2024
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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would
put 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 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."
8. Taking into consideration the fact that the complainant has already
settled the dispute and verified the compromise deed arrived at between the
parties, and also in view of the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that object of law is not only to
Crmp 405 of 2024
punish the culprit but to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society.
Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, quash the FIR of Crime
No.142 of 2023 registered at the Police Station- Ganj, District-Raipur, so far as
it is concerned against the petitioner herein, Venkateshwaralu Karnati, s/o Shri
K Ramnayya only.
9. The FIR in question registered against the other co-accused namely,
Ajamal Singh, shall continue and the Police may proceed with the investigation
against him, or any other accused persons, subject to its challenge and
ultimate outcome.
10. Instant CRMP is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The FIR
of Crime No.142 of 2023 registered at PS-Ganj, District-Raipur is quashed,
only with respect to the present petitioner- Venkateshwaralu Karnati, s/o Shri
K Ramnayya.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
