Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeev Mittal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2022

                                                1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 1378 of 2017
             1.   Sanjeev Mittal, S/o Mohinder Mittal
             2.   Chetan Mittal, S/o Mohinder Mittal,
             3.   Mohinder Mittal @ Mohinder Kumar, S/o Madan Lal Mittal
                  All Residents of Aggar Nagar Extension, Firozpur Thana Road, Punjab
                  Agriculture University, P.O. & P.S. Firozpur, District- Ludhiana (Punjab)
                                                                      ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Anil Kumar, S/o Sree Ram Nirekhan Ray, R/o House No.12, Staff Bank
                  Colony, Piska More, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Pandra O.P., District- Ranchi
                                                                      ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

             For the Petitioners             : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Nayak, Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-State    : A.P.P.
             For Opposite Party No.2         : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
                                             -----

05/23.03.2022. 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.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR as well as entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S.

Case No.637 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.6479 of 2016, pending in

the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. The informant/opposite party no.2 filed the written report before the

Pandra Police Station alleging therein that he is the businessman and he is

taking part from outside and he is selling in Ranchi town. It was further

alleged that the informant contacted the petitioners for the purpose of

purchasing the parts and the accused persons by taking him on faith, asked

to deposit Rs.6.50 Lakhs and the informant had deposited the advance

amount through Bank of Baroda vide cheque no.314475 dated 27.08.2010.

It was also alleged that the accused persons told the informant that after

getting the money they will send the parts. After getting the money, the

accused persons did not send the parts and on several request made by the

informant the accused persons sent a lot of parts of Rs.59,073/-, which is

unused for the informant. It was further alleged that after getting the parts

which was sent by the petitioners, the informant requested them to return

the amount and take back the parts, but the accused persons have not

returned the money and threatened that we are not going to return the

amount, due to this behave of the accused persons, the informant has paid

the amount as interest of Rs.4,87,000/- to the bank.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

case is arising out of business transaction. He further submits that the

matter has been compromised and joint compromise petition has also been

filed before the court below and the entire amount in question has been

paid to the informant/opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Kumar has appeared on behalf of

opposite party no.2 and he also accepts that the matter has been

compromised and joint compromise petition has already been filed before

the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

6. The said compromise petition is annexed at Annexure-2 of this

petition.

7. In view of the above facts and considering that the compromise has

been entered into between the parties, this matter is arising out of

commercial transaction and the petitioner has already paid the amount in

question to opposite party no.2, it transpires that there is no societal

interest involved in this case.

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 above facts and considering the aforesaid judgments

delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is a fit case to entertain this

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. Accordingly, the FIR as well as entire criminal proceeding in

connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P.) P.S. Case No.637 of 2016,

corresponding to G.R. No.6479 of 2016, pending in the court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi are, hereby, quashed.