Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Jain vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 9 June, 2022

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(Cr.) No. 353 of 2021

Sanjay Jain                                                 ...... Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through S.H.O., P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad
2. Prakash Kumar Agarwal partner of M/s Lucky Coke Industries
                                            ...... Respondents
                   ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                          ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State      : Mrs. Neha Pandey, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate

4/Dated: 09/06/2022

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.

Neha Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel for

the No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in

connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 0148 of 2021 registered for the offences under

sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending

in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The First Information was lodged alleging therein that the petitioner

being official of M/s Prakash Industries Limited along with other officials/co-accused

approached the complainant at his office in a pre-planned manner to cheat the

complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner and other officials allured the

complainant's Firm Lucky Coke Industries to supply the coal at the factory at Champa,

Jangir, Chattisgarh and further committed to make the payment within 30 days from

the date of delivery but the complainant refused. But as there were past dues,

hence, the petitioner and other officials promised to clear the past dues as soon as

possible and further assured that after issuing purchase orders the payment shall be

made within 30 days. It is further alleged that after taking the complainant into

confidence 3 purchase orders in the month of August, September and October were

issued and the coal worth Rs. 2,21,85,307/- was got supplied as per the purchase

order but no payment was made as per the commitment and as per the account the

complainant has been cheated of Rs. 2,06,22,195/- and on asking for the payment the

complainant has been threatened of dire consequences.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the dispute relates to certain commercial transaction and for non payment of Rs.

2,06,22,195/- for which the instant case has been filed. He further submits that the

petitioner has paid the amount in question to the O.P. No. 2 as agreed between the

parties. He submits that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties

and the terms and conditions have been brought on record by way of supplementary

affidavit filed by the petitioner. He submits that MoU has been annexed as Annexure-

A to the supplementary affidavit.

5. Mr. Kumar Amit, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits

that the dispute between the parties has been settled and the amount in question

has been received by the O.P. No. 2 as agreed between the parties. He submits that

the O.P. No. 2 is not willing to proceed in the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits as the matter has been

compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

7. 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-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."

08. 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."

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the dispute has been

settled between the parties by entering into MoU, amount in question has been

received by the O.P. No. 2, the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case,

no societal interest is 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 proceeding in connection with

Dhansar P.S. Case No. 0148 of 2021 registered for the offences under sections 406,

420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court

of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed.