Jharkhand High Court
Udaybir Singh @ Udayavir Singh @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 278 of 2013
------
Udaybir Singh @ Udayavir Singh @ U.V. Singh.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Ritesh Sharma ... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate
04/20.07.2021 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Manish Mishra,
learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including order dated 27.09.2012 whereby cognizance has been
taken under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in
connection with Complaint Case No. 1600/2012, pending in the Court of Sri
Abhimanyu Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Jamshedpur.
4. The complaint case has been filed by O.P. No. 2 against the
petitioner and his firm M/s Hi-Tech Automation for the alleged offence on
28.12.2010 whereby it was alleged that consideration amount of Rs.
9,00,000/- including taxes pretending to having send to him to be
manufactured by the O.P. No. 2 and amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to
the accused by transfer on 28.12.2010 through R.T.G.S. as advance
through the State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Jamshedpur and on demand
the accused had issued a post dated cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- only with
condition that the said cheque shall only be encashed after the complainant
is fully satisfied with the perfection of the said tooling item. It is further
case of the O.P. No. 2 that till date neither the petitioner paid a sum of
Rs. 4,00,000/- nor post dated cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the opposite party
no. 2. On these premises, the instant complaint case has been filed .
5. By order dated 01.04.2013, notice was issued upon the O.P. No. 2
and interim protection was provided to the petitioner.
6. I.A. No. 363 of 2020 has been filed in this case by both the
counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the O.P. No. 2 stating
therein that this case arises out of commercial transaction and the amount
in question has been paid by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2.
7. On query, Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 jointly submit that
compromise is there and in that view of the matter as the cognizance has
been taken under section 420 I.P.C. and there is no public interest involved
and the case is not against society, the cognizance order can be quashed.
They submit that section 420 I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of
the Court.
8. On perusal of aforesaid interlocutory application, it transpires that
joint compromise is annexed with the said interlocutory application which
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and O.P. No. 2.
9. In the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr."
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
61 has observed as under:
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 the 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 the 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. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the judgment in the
case of 'Gian Singh' (supra) and also considering the fact that both the
parties have entered into compromise, cognizance order dated 27.09.2012
including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.
1600/2012 is hereby quashed.
11. Cr.M.P. No. 278 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of. I.A.
No. 363 of 2020 also stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
