Md. Rizwan Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4764 Jhar

                                        1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                ----

Cr.M.P. No. 1779 of 2017

----

Md. Rizwan Ali, son of late Abdul Razzaque Ansari, resident of Village and P.O. Singhara, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali (Bihar) ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Fazle Elahi, son of Dr. Mehboob Raza, proprietor of M/s Raza Construction, having address at Mani Tola, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, APP For O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, Advocate

----

5/13.12.2021 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.1710 of 2015 (arising out of Doranda P.S.Case No.178/2015),pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The case was instituted alleging therein that:

In the complaint the complainant described himself as the proprietor of M/s Raza Construction. It has been stated that the complainant and the petitioner were well acquainted with each other. The complainant being a developer was constructing a multi-storied residential building since 2013 in the name and style of RAUNAQUE ENCLAVE at Village Hundru located at Doranda, Ranchi over the land bearing R.S. Plot No.952 under Khata No.9, P.S. No.224.

An agreement was entered into on 14.02.2013 between the petitioner and the complainant for purchasing a 3 BHK residential flat no.2A having area 1372 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. in the said Raunaque Enclave. As per the said agreement, the petitioner had to pay Rs.22,28,000/- at different stages in installments,

which the petitioner did not pay except the booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid at the time of execution of the said agreement.

It has been alleged that since the petitioner did not show any eagerness and willingness in making payment towards the consideration amount for one year (i.e. from 14.02.2013 to 29.03.2014) the complainant decided to terminate the agreement and a legal notice dated 29.3.2014 to that effect was sent to the petitioner by the complainant. The complainant even offered to the petitioner to take refund of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by him at the time of execution of the agreement dated 14.2.2013. The petitioner did not send any reply to the said legal notice nor did come forward to take refund nor did pay the balance consideration amount till 9.11.2014.

It has been further alleged that on 9.11.2014 at about 11.30 am the petitioner entered into the premises of Raunaque Enclave and extended threats to the complainant and other labourers and contractors for handing over the flat no.2A else they would be dragged in criminal cases.

It has been also alleged that on 21.12.2014 at about 7.45 pm, when the complainant was disbursing payment to the contractor and workers, the petitioner and his two associates alongwith two other unknown persons came to the premises of Raunaque Enclave and abused the complainant, criminally intimidated him. The other two associates pointed their respective revolvers upon the complainant and threatened him to handover the flat or to make refund of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner within a week failing he would be killed. The other accused persons at the instance of the petitioner snatched away a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the drawer, took away valuable articles, threw away the valuable telephone hand set out of the premises, caused damage to the construction work and also took away the construction equipments and cycles of workers. The value of those articles were claimed to be Rs.20,000/-. Upon being objected by the complainant to the extent that the petitioner could not claim possession

without making payment of the balance amount, the petitioner slapped him and gave a week time to handover the flat else they(the petitioner's side) would not be responsible for the dire consequences.

It has been further alleged that the petitioner upon seeing the nearby people coming left the premises by taking away a laptop of Dell make of worth Rs.35,000/- . Cabin made of glass was also damaged.

The complainant in the complaint admitted about the pendency of proceeding under section 107, Cr.P.C against him in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi vide M.545/2015 (non-FIR Case No.11/20147).

It has been lastly alleged that the accused persons had no right to forcibly claim the flat on the basis of violation of the agreement 14.02.2013 and non- payment of the consideration amount. Thus, the accused persons had committed offences punishable under sections 448, 427, 323, 379, 504, 506, 34 IPC. Lastly, it was prayed to put the accused persons on trial and punish them in accordance with law. The complainant enclosed the agreement dated 14.02.2013 and the legal notice dated 29.03.2014 with the complaint.

4. At the outset, Mr. Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that compromise has been taken place between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 who happened to be a builder. He draws attention of the Court to joint compromise petition contained in Annexure-8 in the I.A. No.5041/2021. By way of referring to paragraph no.4 of the said petition, he submits that it was agreed between the parties on 08.07.2019 all the cases have been settled between the parties. He further submits that pursuant to that, O.P.No.2 has been acquitted in the said G.R.No.548 of 2015 by the concerned court on 23.02.2020. He further submits that inspite of that the O.P.No.2 is not cooperating and the petitioner has also challenged the cognizance order in this petition. He further submits that in light of the joint compromise, the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the case of "Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.", (2014) 6 SCC 466.

5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that he has filed the reply to the said I.A. and submits that the matter was mediated between the parties before

Mediation Centre in the Civil Court, Ranchi wherein at paragraph no.4 of the report it has been disclosed that all 3 cases including Title Suit No.465 of 2014 shall be settled between the parties. He submits that Title Suit has been filed by the petitioner and it is not settled as yet.

6. Mr. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he will instruct the petitioner to take appropriate steps for settlement in terms of the mediation report.

7. In view of the above facts and considering that the parties have settled their dispute in terms of report of the mediation centre and the O.P.No.2 has already been resulted in acquittal, prima facie, the case is arising out of transaction of a flat which is civil in nature, there is no societal interest involved in this case and this is a case where the parties are purchaser and builder and in view of the judgment in the case of "Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr." and considering the compromise between the parties, the instant petition is hereby allowed.

8. The entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.1710 of 2015 (arising out of Doranda P.S.Case No.178/2015), pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is hereby quashed.

9. Cr.M.P. No.1779 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

10. The parties are at liberty to move before the concerned court where title suit is pending.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,