Jharkhand High Court
Nikhil Nanda vs State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 352 of 2020
with
I.A. No. 2973 of 2021
1. Nikhil Nanda, aged about 45 years, so of late Rajan Nanda,
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura
Road, P.O.-Amar Nagar, P.S.-Sector-31, District-Faridabad, Haryana-
121003.
2. Shenu Agarwal, aged about 49 years, son of Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Chief
Executive Officer, M/s Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura Road, P.O.-
Amar Nagar, P.S.-Sector-31, District-Faridabad, Haryana-121003.
3. Mr. Neeraj Mehra, aged about 46 years, so of Sh. S.M. Mehra, Chief
Sales Officer, M/s Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura Road, P.O.-Amar
Nagar, P.S.-Sector-31, District-Faridabad, Haryana-121003.
4. Mr. Manish Rastogi, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Dhanesh,
Commercial Head, M/s Escorts Limited, 15/5, Mathura Road, P.O.-
Amar Nagar, P.S.-Sector-31, District-Faridabad, Haryana-121003.
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. M/s Sanyog Commercial Private Limited, through its Director, Sri
Satyendra Narayan Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Sheo Narayan
Singh resident of Palika Market, Near Old Bus Stand, P.O. & P.S.-
Sadar, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
..... ...Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate.
------
03/ 21.09.2021 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
and Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing 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. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 03.09.2019, by which, the complaint was sent
for registration of the FIR and also for investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. Further prayer has been made to quash the F.I.R. dated 09.10.2019
and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 346
of 2019, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The First Information Report was instituted stating therein
that the complainant was Distributor of the Escorts Tractors appointed by
the accused No. 1 for the State of Jharkhand during the period
commencing from August, 2005 to July 2013, while the complainant was
working as distributor the Escorts Ltd., company sent a letter dated
10.12.2008 to the complainant-company expressing its desire to appoint
the complainant company as a Tractor stockiest for Orissa State, keeping
in view the performance and successful operation of the complainant in
the State of Jharkhand as Distributor of Escorts Tractor. In the said letter,
the accused No. 1 through its officers induced the complainant-company
to enhance the C/C limit of Rs. 2 crores for being appointed as stockiest
and the accused company expected in over of 400 tractors and amount to
the tune of Rs. 15 crores from the complainant company. On 23.7.2008 the
then Area Manager of the accused No. 1 posted at Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
approached the complainant at its Hazaribag office and dishonestly
induced the complainant on behalf of the accused No. 1 to enhance the
C/C limit up to Rs. 2 crores for being appointed as stockist of the State of
Orissa and asked the complainant to approach Head Office for
confirmation. The Bank was not ready to enhance the cash credit limit up
to 2 crore even after deposit of Rs. 45 lakhs, unless letter of appointment /
agreement between the complainant and the accused company is produced
and in this way the ongoing deposit by the complainant company came to
be stopped. The complainant deposited Rs. 45 lakhs and due to lack of
agreement, the C/C limit has not been enhanced. Thereafter the
complainant continued to establish the oral contact with the accused
official of the company, but all in vain and when the complainant chased
the officials of the accused company, they abruptly terminated the
distributorship of Escorts Tractors without any reasonable cause.
Thereafter the complainant sent a notice of demand for refusal of 45 lakhs
together with interest @ 18% to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
accused no. 2 as well as to adjust the same. The officials of the accused
company from the very beginning cheated the complainant and thereby
dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs. On the basis
of these allegations, the complaint case was filed.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that initially the complaint petition was filed, whereby, by order
dated 03.09.2019, the learned Court has directed the police to register the
case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigate the matter. He further
submits that Section 420 of the I.P.C. is compoundable and Section 406 is
not compoundable and this Court is having the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., in view of the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the
entire criminal proceeding. He submits that the transaction was
commercial in nature and subsequently O.P. No. 2 and these petitioners
have entered into a compromise and the matter has been amicably settled
and for that I.A. No. 2973 of 2021 has been filed, which has also been
affidavited on behalf of O.P. No. 2 by one of the Director of the Company
and the said affidavit is also supported by the pairvikar of the petitioner.
He further submits that the terms of the compromise is recorded in the
settlement agreement dated 23.02.2021, as contained in Annexure-A/1 of
the said I.A.
6. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for
the O.P. No. 2 also accepts about the compromise arrived at between the
parties. He submits that the terms of settlement is annexed as Annexure-
A/1 to the I.A.
7. In view of the above facts, this Court has gone through the
Annexure-A/1 of the said I.A., wherein it has been mentioned that both
the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, as the case is arising
out of a commercial transaction and there is no involvement of societal
interest.
8. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab
& Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no
chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be
exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as follows:-
29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the
timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence when the matter is still
under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat
liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be
after looking into the attendant circumstances as
narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan
is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the
High Court may exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned
above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173,
Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would
become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the
said report and the evidence collected, particularly
the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained
by the victim. This aspect, however, would be
examined along with another important
consideration, namely, in view of settlement between
the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to
interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this
question in affirmative, then also such a case would
be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of
approval to the compromise arrived at between the
parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose
would be served in carrying out the criminal
proceedings which in all likelihood would end in
acquittal, in any case.
30. We have found that in certain cases, the High
Courts have accepted the compromise between the
parties when the matter in appeal was pending before
the High Court against the conviction recorded by the
trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the
accused persons have been found guilty by the trial
court, which means the serious charge of Section 307
IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the
level of the trial court. There would not be any
question of accepting compromise and acquitting the
accused persons simply because the private parties
have buried the hatche.
9. In the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr."
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement,
arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as
follows:-
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 joint
compromise petition, filed by both the parties before this Court and there
is no societal interest involved in this case and also taking into
consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the order dated
03.09.2019, by which, the complaint was sent for registration of the FIR
and also for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as the
F.I.R. dated 09.10.2019 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of
Sadar P.S. Case No. 346 of 2019, are hereby, quashed.
11. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of. I.A. No. 2973 of 2021 also stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
