Jharkhand High Court
Vineet Nayyar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2309 of 2016
----
1.Vineet Nayyar, son of late Gyan Prakash Nayyar, Director of Ajanta
Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., Amin Building, West Exhibition Road, PO and
PS Gandhi Maidan, District Patna
2.Jata Shankar Jha, son of late Dayanand Jha, Director of Ananta
Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., Amin Building, West Exhibition Road, PO and
PS Gandhi Maidan, District Patna
3.Shamim Ahmad, son of Jamaluddin, Manager, M/s CYCLO INDIA, B-5,
Industrial Estate, P.S Banna Devi, District Aligarh-202001, resident of
village/mohalla Amin Nisha Road, Dodpur, PO and PS Civil Line, Aligarh,
District Aligarh U.P. ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Kedar Rai, son of late Nasingh Rai, resident of Green Park Darling
Housing New Area Moraradi, PO Morabadi, PS Bariatu, District Ranchi
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. J.S. Jha, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. S.K. Tiwary, Advodate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate
----
7/08.03.2022 Heard Mr. J.S. Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. P.A.N.Roy, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. S.K.Tiwary,
the learned counsel for the respondent State.
This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.53 of 2012, including the
order taking dated 08.05.2012 by which the process has been issued
against the petitioners, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
The prosecution in brief is that the complainant has been
appointed as consignee agents of M/s CYCLO (I) Ltd, Aligarh and
thereafter it is alleged that a sum of Rs.1,55,570/- was deposited by
demand draft as security deposit. It is mentioned in the agreement that
after completion or termination of the agency the same will be returned
entire deposited amount. It is further alleged that the complainant
continues to do work as a consignee as agent till March, 2009 and
thereafter the complainant demanded to return back to security deposit
but same has been not returned by the petitioners, which became the
subject matter of dispute in between the complainant and the
petitioners, which ultimately followed institution of criminal prosecution
against the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
case is arising out of business transaction between the petitioners and
the O.P.No.2. He submits that there are case and counter case and it was
agreed between the parties that the case filed shall be withdrawn by
both the parties and on that basis the compromise has been entered
into.
Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that he has already withdrawn the petition filed by the petitioner
at Aligarh. He submits that O.P.No.2 has not withdrawn the petition
which is filed at Ranchi.
Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that
the compromise has been entered into and he has no objection if the
entire criminal proceeding is quashed as the compromise has been
entered into.
In view of the above facts and considering that the parties
have compromised and the matter is arising out of commercial
transaction, there is no societal interest involved in this petition and on
this fact a 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 even 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."
The case of the petitioner is on better footing as cognizance
is taken under section 406 of I.P.C which is compoundable.
In view of the above and considering the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no societal interest involved, the case is
arising out of a commercial transaction and the parties have
compromised, and to allow the instant proceeding would amount to
abuse of the process of law, and accordingly, the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2012
arising out of Complaint Case No.53 of 2012, pending in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is hereby quashed.
Cr.M.P. No. 2309 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
