Michael Dougles Dougherty vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3450 Jhar

       IN      THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 2584 of 2021

      1. Michael Dougles Dougherty
      2. Rene Eric Basei
      3. Pankaj Dubey
      4. Lovely Pathak
      5. Raju Balodi                                  .....  ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Shreyans Jain                                 ..... ...      Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

      For the Petitioners       :        Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
      For the State             :        Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate.
                                         ------

08/ 30.08.2022 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 15 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

3. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the dispute in the FIR is between the buyer firm and the seller company (M/s Sai Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata) whom the price was paid to, the goods were purchased from and TCS certificate and invoice were issued by and whose promise to get the registration done has been breached allegedly. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are foreign nationals residing in the USA and France respectively. The petitioner no.1 has even ceased to be the Director of Polaris India Private Limited after 01.03.2021. The petitioner no.3 has ceased to be a Director of the company after 30.04.2020 and resides in New Delhi. The petitioner no.4 is a woman, ceased to be connected with the company after 19.03.2019 and lives in New Delhi. The petitioner no.5 never was a Director, but the Company Secretary, who also has ceased to be connected with the company after 10.03.2021 and lives in New Delhi. He further submits that petitioners are not concerned with the seller company and the motorcycle in question has purchased from Polaris India Private Limited and also in absence of any affidavit, the complaint has been filed, which has been sent by the learned court for registration of the FIR, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported in

(2015) 6 SCC 287, the order was bad in law. He further submits that as a good gesture, the company has offered the O.P. No. 2 the amount, claimed by the O.P. No. 2 to be paid by the company, however, it was required to be paid by the seller. He submits that in the form of a settlement agreement, the complainant has disclosed that a sum of Rs. 18,51,997/- has been expensed by him to buy the said motorcycle and in view of his request, the company is exceeded his request and has come forward with a demand draft of Rs. 18,51,997/- , which is being handed over in the court to Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel has handed over the said draft to the informant Mr. Shreyans Jain, who is present in court in person.

4. In view of the above, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 jointly submit that a compromise has entered into between the parties and both the sides have signed the said compromise and the terms and conditions of the settlement has been disclosed therein, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. The First Party shall receive from the Second Party a sum of Rs. 18,51,997/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Only) as the amount equal to that claimed to have been paid as price for the motorcycle by the First Party, as full and final settlement amount and hand over the motorcycle to Mr. Aftab Alam, P.G. & A & Logistics Manager or any other nominee or representative authorized by the Second Party within one week. Polaris would undertake the transportation of the Motorcycle from the custody of the First Party to its premises at its own cost and expenses. Signing of this memorandum of settlement agreement shall be evidence of receipt of the money, being paid vide Demand Draft No. 114384 dated 26.08.2022.

2. The First Party shall not initiate, continue or press the criminal accusation or any civil claim as against the said accused persons of Polaris Company, arising out of or in relation to the said purchase of the motorcycle and / or the transaction related thereto and shall support the prayer / petition for quashing of the criminal case as against the persons related to and / or represented by the Second Party, including vide Cr.M.P. No. 2584 of 2021, and if required, file affidavit in support thereof, which includes filing of a joint affidavit or petition upon asking of the second party for the same. It is clearly understood by the parties that nothing in this compromise shall be

constructed to be any admission by the Second Party or by the accused of any wrongdoing, as alleged in the criminal case or otherwise; and the payment being made hereunder shall be without prejudice to any right or claim of innocence of the accused persons. The First Party shall not be entitled to make any claim before any court as against the Second Party or any of its officers, employees or representatives-in-interest, present of former, based on such payment or otherwise.

3. The First Party declares that no other proceedings, claims, complaints have been initiated and / or are pending in relation to the transaction which is subject matter or the criminal case or the present compromise.

4. No third party shall claim any benefit out of this settlement.

5. This agreement is being prepared in duplicate."

5. In view the above submissions of the parties and considering that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the petitioners are the Directors and other officers of Polaris India Limited and the motorcycle in question has been purchased from the seller company M/s Sai Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and also considering that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed any further in the matter, the continuation of proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.

6. It also transpires that the case is between two parties and they have settled their dispute between them and no societal interest is involved in this case, reference may be made to the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein 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-27 and 28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

27. 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.

28. 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.

7. Reference may further be made to the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein 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."

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the settlement arrived at between the parties 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 entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 15 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, are hereby, quashed.

9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-