Jharkhand High Court
D.K. Pandey @ Deepak Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 628 of 2021
1. D.K. Pandey @ Deepak Kumar Pandey, aged about 34 years, S/o Sri
Anil Pandey, Resident of Village Chatia, P.O. & P.S. Gola, Dist.
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh
2. Harishankar Yadav, aged about 35 years, S/o Sri Bhuwar Yadav,
Resident of Village Awasthi, P.O. & P.S. Gola Bazar, Dist. Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh
3. Sonu Singh, aged about 32 years, S/o Sri Dayashankar Singh,
Resident of Village Nanhey, P.O. & P.S. Gagaha, Dist. Gorakhpur, Uttar
Pradesh ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Ranjeet Keshri, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Ram Prasad Keshri,
Resident of Balumath, P.O. & P.S. Balumath, Latehar, Jharkhand, at
present residing at Bagra, Simaria, Chatra, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, Spl.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
-----
06/27.10.2021. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Niki
Sinha, learned Spl.P.P. for the opposite party-State and Mr. Rajiv Nandan
Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been taken 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 petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the First
Information Report lodged with Simaria (Chatra) P.S. Case No.132 of 2019,
dated 09.10.2019, pending in the court of the learned A.C.J.M., Chatra.
4. The present case has been instituted on the basis of the statement of
opposite party no.2, who is the complainant/informant in the present case.
The prosecution story is that the petitioners have started a company named
Organic India Agrotec. Under the said company, they use to do plantation
and sale composed seeds. On several occasion, the petitioners distributed
plants and composed seeds by which the opposite party no.2 and others
have come to faith with the petitioners and agreed to invest in their plan. It
has been alleged that the petitioners also invited the local people for
dealership of the company. Accordingly, on assurance, the opposite party
no.2 along with others have deposited money with the petitioners for
getting dealership of the company. After receiving money, the petitioners
have said that the plant and composed seeds will be given to them on
20.02.2019 and dealership license will be distributed on 25.01.2019. On
10.01.2019 when opposite party no.2 and others have tried to contact the
petitioners then they found that the offices of the petitioners have been
closed and all the given mobile numbers are switched off and on being
search, no whereabouts has been known. Therefore, opposite party no.2
has lodged an FIR against the petitioners.
5. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have already paid the amount of Rs.4,12,813/-. He further
submits that Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are
compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with
the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is
pending and by the person who has been cheated.
6. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also
submits that opposite party no.2 has received the amount.
7. In view of above facts, it transpires that the amount in question has
been paid to the opposite party no.2. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Shiji
v. Radhika reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705. Paragraphs 7, 10, 18 and 19
the judgment are quoted herein below:-
"7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the
offences under Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable
with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed
to be compounded. In Ram Lal v. State of J&K this Court
referred to Section 320(9) CrPC to declare that such offences
as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be
compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier
decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and
Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, to be per incuriam
inasmuch as the same permitted composition of offences not
otherwise compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
10. There is another line of decisions in which this Court has
taken note of the compromise arrived at between the parties
and quashed the prosecution in exercise of powers vested in
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Karnataka
v. L. Muniswamy this Court held that the High Court was
entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion
that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed:
"7. ... Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds
to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:
'561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.--
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent power of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of
the process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the
High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose
which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the
very nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice
has got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and
its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width
and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the
plenitude of the power under Section 482 CrPC by itself,
makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same
with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the
power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in
cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of
the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither
necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in
which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be
justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power
must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases
where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse
of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in
declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate
evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court
while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will
have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to
determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent
powers may be invoked.
19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that
the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to
the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each
other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It
was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute
between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been
resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the
prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the
allegations which are now described by her as arising out of
some "misunderstanding and misconception" will be a
futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy
that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to
the complainant, are also no longer supportive of
the prosecution version. The continuance of the
proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section
482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably
invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of
law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts
below."
8. In view of aforesaid facts and considering the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties that the opposite party no.2 has received the
amount in question and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shiji v. Radhika ( supra), the Court is inclined
to interfere in the matter.
9. Accordingly, the First Information Report in connection with Simaria
(Chatra) P.S. Case No.132 of 2019, dated 09.10.2019, pending in the court
of the learned A.C.J.M., Chatra, is hereby quashed.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is therefore, allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
