Jharkhand High Court
Nitu Jindal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1823 of 2021
Nitu Jindal, aged about 37 years, wife of Sarvan Zindal, Resident of
North Side, New Road, Phusro, Near Shyam Bhandar, P.O. Phusro
Bazar, P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chandan Kumar Agarwal, son of Motilal Agarwal, resident of B.M.
Agarwal Colony, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate
-----
02/05.10.2021. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State and
Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Barwadda P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 for the offences registered under
Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a supplementary
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, settlement of
the dispute has been arrived between the petitioner and opposite party no.2
has been annexed. He further submits that the allegation is civil in nature.
There were some transactions between the petitioner and opposite party
no.2, which has been returned by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 and
that is why the settlement dated 24.09.2021 has been arrived between the
parties.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha waives notice on behalf of
opposite party no.2 and submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama on
behalf of opposite party no.2. He also accepts that the settlement of dispute
has been arrived between the parties and opposite party no.2 has received
the amount after the settlement.
5. Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that this is
a case of money transaction between the parties. There is no societal
interest involved and this Court may pass any appropriate order.
6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner,
wherein, memorandum of understanding along with bank statement have
been annexed. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the settlement dated
24.09.2021 that party A and party B would endeavor to get their respective
F.I.Rs. being Bermo P.S. Case No.121/2021 and Barwadda P.S. Case
No.14/2021 be quashed before the competent court. It has been stated in
paragraph 6 of the said settlement that Chandan Kumar Agarwal, who is the
informant, has received Rs.27,33,650/- from the petitioner. In paragraph 7
of the said settlement, further description of payment and mode of payment
are described. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh
v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that even in
non-compoundable cases, the High Court can exercise its power to quash
the petition. Similar view has been taken in the case of Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7. In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, no purpose will be served if the said proceeding is
allowed to be continued particularly when there is no societal interest
involved in the case in hand. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings
including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S.
Case No.14 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Dhanbad is quashed.
8. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
