Jharkhand High Court
Fulchand Saw @ Phulchand Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1929 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1929 of 2012
1. Fulchand Saw @ Phulchand Saw
2. Arjun Saw ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lakhan Mahto ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastav, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate
-----
09/21.03.2023 Status report is on the record.
2. I.A. No.1695 of 2021 has been filed for modification of prayer portion
of the order dated 30.04.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency
of this petition, the learned court vide order dated 10.01.2014 has taken
cognizance and that is why, this I.A. has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that he has filed
response to the said I.A. in which he has stated that identical issue of two
cases have been filed and in one of the case, the parties have compromised
the matter and this case can be dropped.
5. In view of the above facts, the prayer made in the said I.A. is
allowed.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1695 of 2021 stands disposed of.
7. Let the said I.A. be treated as part of the record.
8. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.119 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 2875 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi. In view of the order passed in the aforesaid I.A., the
cognizance order dated 10.01.2014 is also under challenge.
9. Mrs. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for
the same set of allegations, two cases have been filed and in one case,
compromise has entered between the parties before the learned court and
money has already been returned to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs by way of
demand draft to opposite party no.2. She further submits that there is
dispute over the land and after receiving of the amount in question,
opposite party no.2 has issued power of attorney in favour of the
petitioners.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 submits that he has filed response to I.A. No.1695 of 2021, wherein, it
has been stated in paragraph 6 that opposite party no.2 has received the
amount of Rs.30 Lakhs and he has handed over original power of attorney
regarding the land in dispute to the petitioners. He further submits that the
said payment was given in another case in A.B.P. No.1525 of 2015 in
connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.140 of 2015, corresponding to G.R.
Case No.1931 of 2015. By way of referring paragraph 7 of the said response
to the I.A., he submits that the matter has been settled between the
petitioners and opposite party no.2 and this case can be dropped.
11. Mr. Srivastav, learned counsel for the State submits that compromise
is there.
12. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that
the amount in question has been received by opposite party no.2, which has
been admitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. The power of
attorney has already been issued in favour of the petitioners. Prima facie, it
appears that the matter is arising out of civil dispute and for that criminal
proceeding has been initiated. There is no societal interest involved in this
matter. The dispute is between two individuals. In view of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& another; [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder Singh & others v.
State of Punjab & another; [(2014) 6 SCC 466 , the entire criminal
proceedings arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.119 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 2875 of 2012 including the cognizance order dated
10.01.2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi
is, hereby, quashed.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
15. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
